AMERICAN BARASSOCIATION’S SECTION OF PUBLIC CONTRACT LAWSUBCONTRACTING, TEAMING, AND STRATEGIC ALLIANCES COMMITTEE
AGENDA FORMEETING DATEDWEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2017, 12:00 – 1:00 PM EASTERN
TELECONFERENCE: DIAL IN: 1-866-381-8626, PASSCODE: 826431
PLEASE NOTE THAT OURWEBINAR TECHNOLOGY FOR OUR MEETINGS MAYAUTO-GENERATE A DIFFERENT NUMBER, FOR OUR CALL PLEASE
REMEMBER TO USE THIS DIAL-IN NUMBER: 1-866-381-8626, PASSCODE: 826431.
Call to Order and Introductory Remarks
• Steve Kaye, Hartmann Young
Legislative Report
• Alan Chvotkin
Presentation and Discussion
• Michael Mutek, Steptoe & Johnson, will present on Premier Gaming Trailers, LLC v.Luna Diversified Enterprises, Inc., in which a million dollar judgment was enteredagainst a prime contractor that left its teaming partner at the altar and terminated therelationship after receiving an Army prime contract.
Regulatory Update
• TBD
Other Business
• Request for Webmaster
Adjourn
DistrictCourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarWithouta
SubcontractAmerican
BarA
ssociationSection
ofPublic
ContractLaw
Subcontracting,Team
ing,andStrategic
Alliances
Committee
April5,2017
MichaelW
.Mutek
Outline
ofPresentation
1.Introduction:W
hyisthis
caseinteresting?
�Classic
“leftataltar”scenario�Isthis
ajointventure
oraprim
e–sub
relationship?�Unjustenrichm
entisdiscussed
2.Whatw
asthe
arrangementbetw
eenthe
companies?
3.Wasenforceability
anissue?
4.The
“jointventure”appearstobeaverticalcontractor
teamarrangem
ent5.The
Courtfound
thatentitlementto
judgmenton
thecom
plaintanddam
ages6.Conclusion
Questions
&discussion
2MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
Summary
1.Arecentdefaultjudgm
entawarded
amillion
dollarsinasituation
where
agovernm
entcontractorleftitspartneratthe
altarandterm
inatedthe
relationshipafterreceiving
anArmyprim
econtract.
2.The
defendantterminated
theagreem
enttofind
aless
expensivesupplier.
3.The
USDistrictC
ourtfoundthatthe
partiesentered
intoa“joint
venture.”
4.Asaresult,the
DistrictC
ourtorderedthe
defendanttopay
$1.2million
indam
agesand
coststoitspartnerdue
tothe
failuretorecognize
theirunw
rittenagreem
ent.
PremierG
aming
Trailers,LLCv.Luna
DiversifiedEnterprises,Inc.Case
No.8:16-cv-3378-T-33TGWbefore
theUnited
StatesDistrictCourtforthe
Middle
DistrictofFlorida,Tampa
Division.
3MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
1.Introduction:Whyisthis
caseinteresting?
(A)Classic
“leftataltar”scenario
�The
scenarioofthe
firstreportedteam
ingcase
(AirTech.Corp.
v.GeneralElec.C
o.,199N.E.2d
538,547(Mass.1964)
•Where
thecourtfound
thatbeingonateam
seekingthe
award
ofanAFcontractm
eantmore
thananopportunity
tobid
ona
subcontract
�Ateam
arrangementis
a“marriage
ofconvenience”
�Parties
legallyjoined
inateam
arrangementm
aypossess
legalrights
andexpectations
which,ifunfulfilled,can
giverise
to•disputes,
•claim
s,and•legalactions
4MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
Introduction:Whyisthis
caseinteresting?
(B)Isthis
ajointventure
oraprim
e–sub
relationship?
�The
DistrictC
ourtdescribesthe
arrangementas
ajointventure•The
termwasused
inthe
Complaintto
describethe
relationship
�Itis
notclearthatthisisatrue
ajointventure,
which
isahorizontalteam
arrangement
�Instead,itm
aybeaverticalteam
arrangement
5MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
Introduction:Whyisthis
caseinteresting?
(C)Unjustenrichm
entisused
asarem
edy
�Unjustenrichm
entassertionsgenerally
notassuccessfulas
aclaim
ofbreach
ofcontractinteam
ing•
Onelaw
journalarticlenotes
“unjustenrichmentw
asunsuccessfulin
themajority
ofcases
surveyed”
�Unjustenrichm
entmaybeused
asanequitable
remedy
where
theaward
would
nothaveoccurred
butforthenonbreaching
party’sefforts
�Interesting
2007HLR
articlenotes
unjustenrichmentclaim
srarely
succeedunless
thedefendantw
rongfullyinduced
thebenefit.
•Aclaim
forunjustenrichment“do[es]notlie
simply
becauseone
partybenefits
fromthe
effortsorobligations
ofothers,butinsteaditm
ustbeshow
nthata
partywas
unjustlyenriched
inthe
sensethatthe
term‘unjustly’could
mean
illegallyor
unlawfully.”
6MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
Introduction:Whyisthis
caseinteresting?
(C)Unjustenrichm
entin3team
ingagreem
entcases(2successful):
�Trianco
v.IBM(2008)
•IBM(prim
e)solicitedTrianco
(sub)thenadvised
Triancothatits
pricingwasunacceptable
andtold
itto“rebid”
•Decision
abitstrange
butfoundthatthe
teaming
agreementw
asenforceable
tothe
extentthatitbound
theparties
tonegotiate
forasubcontractprice
ingood
faithafterthe
award
oftheprim
econtract
•Existence
ofavalid
contractprecludedaclaim
forunjustenrichmentunderN
ewYork
orPennsylvania
lawand
claimdism
issed
�InternationalCargo
Managem
entSpecialistsv.EG
&GDynatrend
(1995)•
InternationalCargo
wasnotable
toprove
theexistence
ofavalid
contract
•Wasable
torecoverthe
valueofits
work
basedonunjustenrichm
ent
�Abtv.JHPIEG
OCO
RPORATIO
N(2000)
•DefendantJH
PIEGOafteraw
ardadvised
Abtthatitw
ouldnotbe
enteringinto
acontractw
ithAbt
•Abtalleged
unjustenrichmentw
asforegoing
joiningofa
competing
team
•Testforunjustenrichm
ent=gain
bydefendantand
nottheloss
byplaintiff
•Nounjustenrichm
entwithoutevidence
establishingthe
defendant'senrichm
ent
7MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
2.Whatw
asthe
arrangementbetw
eenthe
companies?
�Prem
ierGaming
TrailersLLC
,amobile
gaming
trailerfabricatorlocated
inTam
pa,Florida,andLuna
Diversified
Enterprises
Inc.,anequipm
entsupplierandconsulting
firm,entered
intoan
agreementforthe
submission
ofbidstogovernm
entagencies
�There
wasnoform
alwritten
agreement
�Prem
ierprovidedLuna
withplans
consistingofdesigns,
features,andspecifications,as
wellas
productiontimetables
andcosts
ofproduction,andLuna
would
formally
submitthe
bids
�IfLuna
receivedacontract,P
remierw
astofabricate
thetrailers
anddeliverthem
tothe
procuringagency
�Each
partyexpected
toreceive
ashare
ofanycontractproceeds
fromthe
jointventure
8MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
Whatw
asthe
arrangementbetw
eenthe
companies?
�The
partiessubm
ittedthree
bids–
twowere
unsuccessful
�Forthe
successfulbidatissue,P
remierbelieved
itwould
receive$1,196,183,ifthe
Armycontractw
asawarded
toLuna
�When
Lunadid
notinformPrem
ieroftheresultofthe
competition,
Prem
iercontactedthe
Armyand
learnedthatLuna
hadbeen
awarded
thecontract
�Prem
ieralsolearned
thatitsinform
ationwaspartofLuna’s
bid
�Luna
acknowledged
thatithadbeen
awarded
thecontractand
toldPrem
ierthatitwasterm
inatingthe
agreementin
ordertofind
aless
expensivefabricatorthan
Prem
ier.9MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
Whatw
asthe
arrangementbetw
eenthe
companies?
�Prem
ierfiledthis
actionand
assertedclaim
sforbreach
ofcontract,unjustenrichm
ent,andfraud
inthe
inducement
�Luna
avoidedservice
ofprocessand
Prem
iereffectedservice
ofprocessby
havingthe
FloridaSecretary
ofState
acceptserviceonbehalfofLuna
�Defaultw
asentered
againstLunaonFebruary
2,2017,andafterLuna
failedto
appearormake
amotion
tosetaside
thedefault,the
DistrictC
ourtinstructedPrem
iertoproceed
withmoving
fordefaultjudgment
�The
DistrictC
ourtensuredthatthere
were
asufficientbasis
inthe
pleadingsforthe
judgmentto
beentered
�Such
ajudgm
entestablishesasfactthe
plaintiff’sallegations
andbars
thedefendant
fromcontesting
thosefacts
onappeal10
MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
3.Wasenforceability
anissue?
�Florida
lawgoverned
thisaction
�The
elements
ofavalid
contractunderFloridalaw
require:1.
anoffer,
2.acceptance
oftheoffer,
3.consideration,and
4.sufficientspecification
oftheessentialterm
softhe
agreement
�Abreach
ofcontractarisesunderFlorida
lawwhen
thefollow
ingare
established:1.
avalid
contract,2.
amaterialbreach
ofthatcontract,and3.
resultingdam
ages
11MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
Wasenforceability
anissue?
�Disputes
involvingateam
ingagreem
entmayfocus
onthe
presenceofan
enforceableagreem
ent•Exam
plesinclude
casesfrom
Virginia,which
haveaddressed
enforceability
�The
teaming
agreementm
aybedeem
edanunenforceable
agreementto
agreement
•The
determination
mayfocus
existenceofessential
terms,including
scopeofw
ork,price,andduration,
which
aresufficientto
indicateanagreem
entcapableofenforcem
ent
�Enforceability
wasnotan
issueexam
inedinthis
case.
12MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
4.The“jointventure”appears
tobea
verticalcontractorteamarrangem
ent�The
FederalAcquisition
Regulation
(FAR)at9.601
defines“contractorteam
arrangement”as
anarrangem
entinwhich:
1.Twoorm
orecom
paniesform
apartnership
orjointventureto
actasapotentialprim
econtractor;or
2.Apotentialprim
econtractoragrees
withone
ormore
othercom
paniestohave
themactas
itssubcontractors
underaspecified
governmentcontractoracquisition
program.
�Inthis
case,thearrangem
entwasnotreduced
towriting,butw
asdescribed
inthe
plaintiff’scom
plaintasa“jointventure,”and
thattermwasused
bythe
DistrictC
ourtinitsorder
�However,the
emailattached
tothe
complaintto
establishthe
“jointventure”uses
theterm
“teaming”
13MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
�Team
arrangements,as
definedinthe
FAR,can
beverticalorhorizontal
�Although
thearrangem
entinthis
caseisdescribed
asa“jointventure,”a
termthatm
aybeused
inageneric
waytodescribe
acollaborative
effort,thisresem
blesaverticalteam
arrangement,as
definedinFAR9-601(2),
•Where
theparties
intendthatthe
primecontractorw
illsubcontractwork
tothe
otherparty,•Ifthe
governmentaw
ardsacontractto
theprim
econtractor.
�Atrue
jointventureunderFA
R9-601(1)w
ouldbeahorizontalteam
arrangement
•Inthattype
ofarrangement,itis
commonforthe
jointventure,ifselected,to
receivethe
contractaward
andnotone
oftheteam
mates
14MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
The“jointventure”appears
tobea
verticalcontractorteamarrangem
ent
5.TheCourtfound
thatentitlementto
judgmenton
thecom
plaintanddam
ages�Aclaim
forunjustenrichmentin
Floridahas
threeelem
ents1.the
plaintiffhasconferred
abenefiton
thedefendant,
2.the
defendantvoluntarilyaccepted
andretained
thatbenefit;and
3.itwould
beinequitable
forthedefendants
toretain
itwithoutpaying
thevalue
�The
Complaintnoted:
•Luna
receivedthe
benefitoftheBid
Information
whichLuna
usedtoobtain
thebid
awardand
subsequentlyunilaterally
terminated
theJointVenture
Agreement.
•Luna
wasawarded
theArm
yBid
asaresultofthe
BidInform
ation,butintendsthatLuna
receiveno
compensation
forthebenefititconferred
onLuna.
•Luna
hasretained
thebenefitofthe
BidInform
ationinan
attemptto
increasecom
pensationtoLuna
receivedunderthe
ArmyBid
…
15MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
�Questions:
•Isn’ta
claimforunjustenrichm
entarequestfor
anequitable
remedy?
•Doesn’tthatm
eanthatthere
isno
contract?
�From
anarticle
onunjustenrichm
entinFlorida:
InFlorida,a
claimforunjustenrichm
entisan
equitableclaim
basedon
alegal
fictionwhich
implies
acontractas
amatteroflaw
eventhough
theparties
tosuch
animplied
contractneverindicatedthatan
agreementexisted
betweenthem
.An
actionforunjustenrichm
entcannotapplywhere
anexpress
contractexistswhich
allowsforrecover[y].
�Rememberthis
wasadefaultjudgm
ent
16MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
TheCourtfound
thatentitlementto
judgment
onthe
complaintand
damages
�Afterreview
ingwhatthe
DistrictC
ourtsaidwere
“well-pled
“allegationsinPrem
ier’scom
plaintanditsattachm
ents,•Including
aLuna
emailthatm
entioned“team
ingtogether”for
governmentcontracts,and
examining
theelem
entsofthe
causesofaction
assertedbyPrem
ier,•The
DistrictC
ourtfoundthatPrem
ierwasentitled
tothe
entryofa
finaldefaultjudgment.Italso
heldthatPrem
ierwasentitled
todam
agesof$7,619.00
foreachunit,w
hichtotaled
$1,196,183
17MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
TheCourtfound
thatentitlementto
judgment
onthe
complaintand
damages
�Whataboutthe
measure
ofdamages
usedby
theDistrictC
ourt?
�The
DistrictC
ourtawarded
thedefendantthe
totalrevenue
itshouldhave
receivedoneach
ofthetrailers.
�Isthis
awindfall?
�Whataboutcosts
ofproduction?�Would
lostprofitshave
beenabetterm
easureof
damages?
18MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
TheCourtfound
thatentitlementto
judgment
onthe
complaintand
damages
6.Conclusion
�Contractorteam
arrangements
arecom
mon
andimportanttools
forcompanies
seekinggovernm
entcontracts
�FAR
9.602notes
(a)Contractorteamarrangem
entsmay
bedesirable
fromboth
agovernm
entandindustry
standpointinorderto
enablethe
companies
involvedto—
(1)Complem
enteachother’s
uniquecapabilities;and
(2)Offerthe
governmentthe
bestcombination
ofperformance,
cost,anddelivery
forthesystem
orproductbeingacquired.
�However,w
henapartneris
leftatthealtarw
ithoutasubcontract,the
resultcanbealawsuitforbreach
oftheagreem
ent,aswellas
otherclaim
s
19MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
Questions
&Comments
20MichaelW
.Mutek
DistrictC
ourtFindsPartnerW
rongfullyLeftatthe
AltarW
ithoutaSubcontract
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION PREMIER GAMING TRAILERS LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:16-cv-3378-T-33TGW LUNA DIVERSIFIED ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant. ______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court in consideration of
Plaintiff Premier Gaming Trailers LLC’s Motion for Final
Default Judgment on Complaint (Doc. # 13), filed on February
9, 2017. The time for filing a response has passed and no
response in opposition has been filed, nor has a motion to
set aside the default entered by the Clerk against Defendant
Luna Diversified Enterprises, Inc. been filed. For the
reasons that follow, the Court grants the Motion.
I. Background
Premier Gaming Trailers is a mobile gaming trailer
fabricator located in Tampa, Florida. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 8). On
August 26, 2016, Premier Gaming Trailers was contacted by
Luna, an equipment supplier and consulting firm, regarding a
joint venture “that involved submitting bids to certain
Premier Gaming Trailers LLC v. Luna Diversified Enterprises, Inc. Doc. 14
Dockets.Justia.com
2
requests for quote issued by government agencies.” (Id. at ¶¶
9, 10). When there was an opportunity to bid on a request for
quote, Premier Gaming Trailers would supply Luna with “plans
consisting of the design, features, and specifications, as
well as production timetables and cost of” production and
Luna would “then take the necessary steps to formally submit
the bid.” (Id. at ¶ 11).
If the bid was awarded to Premier Gaming Trailers and
Luna, Premier Gaming Trailers was to fabricate the goods and
deliver said goods to the procuring agency. (Id. at ¶ 12).
The proceeds of any sale made in furtherance of the joint
venture were to have been apportioned per “‘Dual Check’
terms.” (Id. at ¶ 13). “The Dual Check terms provided that
[Premier Gaming Trailers] and Luna would receive separate
payments . . . in accordance with their respective
compensation terms pursuant to the Parties’ joint venture
agreement.” (Id.). The joint venture agreement was not
reduced to a formal, written contract, although “the
agreement . . . is evidence in certain communications . .
.[,] as well as the performance of the terms of the Joint
Venture Agreement by the Parties.” (Id. at ¶ 14).
In September of 2016, Marcos Morales on behalf of Luna
contacted Premier Gaming Trailers with regard to a request
3
for quote issued by the Department of the Army, identified as
Solicitation Number W9124D-16-T-0038. (Id. at ¶ 15). Upon
full performance of services rendered with respect to
Solicitation Number W9124D-16-T-0038, the contracted party
was to receive $1,196,183. (Id. at ¶ 16).
Before jointly bidding on Solicitation Number W9124D-
16-T-0038, Premier Gaming Trailers and Luna had “joint
ventured on three other requests for quotes that were
subsequently not awarded to the Parties.” (Id. at ¶ 17). For
each of those three instances in which the bid was not awarded
to Premier Gaming Trailers and Luna, Luna informed Premier
Gaming Trailers of the failure to secure the bid. (Id.).
Premier Gaming Trailers, however, was not provided an update
with respect to Solicitation Number W9124D-16-T-0038. (Id. at
¶ 18).
“Concerned about the lack of communication coming from
Luna,” the owner and manager of Premier Gaming Trailers, Lidan
Bekhor, contacted the Army. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 19). The Army
informed Bekhor that Luna had been awarded the bid for
Solicitation Number W9124D-16-T-0038. (Id. at ¶ 20). Bekhor
was able to determine that Luna was awarded the bid based on
the information provided to Luna by Premier Gaming Trailers.
(Id. at ¶ 21). Premier Gaming Trailers’ representatives then
4
attempted to contact Morales but to no avail; finally, Jason
Currey, a representative of Luna, answered one of Premier
Gaming Trailers’ phone calls. (Id. at ¶ 22).
Currey acknowledged that the bid for Solicitation Number
W9124D-16-T-0038 had been awarded to Luna but indicated “Luna
was unilaterally terminating the Joint Venture Agreement in
an attempt to locate a fabricator that could build the Units
at a lower cost . . . and was intending that [Premier Gaming
Trailers] receive no compensation . . . .” (Id. at ¶ 23). On
October 28, 2016, Premier Gaming Trailers served Luna with a
demand letter, informing Luna of Premier Gaming Trailers’
claims against Luna and demanding payment. (Id. at ¶ 25).
Luna did not acquiesce to Premier Gaming Trailers’ demand.
(Id. at ¶ 26).
Thereafter, on December 9, 2016, Premier Gaming Trailers
instituted this action against Luna. (Id.). Premier Gaming
Trailers’ Complaint asserts a claim for breach of the joint
venture agreement (Count I), unjust enrichment (Count II),
fraud in the inducement (Count III), and conversion (Count
IV). (Id.). Premier Gaming Trailers “attempted to serve Luna
via process server, but was ultimately unsuccessful.” (Doc.
# 10 at ¶ 3). Then, relying on Section 48.161, Fla. Stat.,
and Hansen Beverage Company v. Consolidated Distributors,
5
Inc., No. 6:11-cv-329-Orl-22DAB, 2012 WL 12903172 (M.D. Fla.
Jan. 30, 2012), Premier Gaming Trailers effected service of
process upon Luna by having the Florida Secretary of State
accept service on behalf of Luna. (Doc. # 10 at ¶ 6). On
January 18, 2017, Premier Gaming Trailers sent Luna the alias
summons issued on January 4, 2017, the Complaint, and a notice
that the Florida Secretary of State had accepted service of
the alias summons via certified mail. (Id. at ¶ 7). Premier
Gaming Trailers has not received Luna’s return receipt.
(Id.). Premier Gaming Trailers specifically averred that
“[u]pon information and belief, Luna has been actively
avoiding service.” (Id. at ¶ 8).
As such, Premier Gaming Trailers applied to the Clerk of
Court for entry of Clerk’s Default on February 1, 2017. (Id.).
The Clerk entered default against Luna on February 2, 2017.
(Doc. # 11). A week later, having received no appearance from
Luna or motion to set aside the default, the Court instructed
Premier Gaming Trailers to proceed with moving for default
judgment. (Doc. # 12). On February 9, 2017, Premier Gaming
Trailers filed the instant Motion seeking default judgment
against Luna. (Doc. # 13). The time for filing a response to
the Motion has passed and Luna failed to respond in
6
opposition. Likewise, Luna has not moved to set aside the
Clerk’s Default or otherwise appeared before this Court.
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides: “When a
party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought
has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is
shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the
party’s default.” A district court may enter a default
judgment against a properly served defendant who fails to
defend or otherwise appear pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55(b)(2). DirecTV, Inc. v. Griffin, 290 F. Supp. 2d
1340, 1343 (M.D. Fla. 2003).
The mere entry of a default by the Clerk does not, in
itself, warrant the Court entering a default judgment. See
Tyco Fire & Sec. LLC v. Alcocer, 218 Fed. Appx. 860, 863 (11th
Cir. 2007) (citing Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Hous. Nat’l Bank,
515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). Rather, a Court must
ensure that there is a sufficient basis in the pleadings for
the judgment to be entered. Id. A default judgment has the
effect of establishing as fact the plaintiff’s well-pled
allegations of fact and bars the defendant from contesting
those facts on appeal. Id.
7
III. Discussion
“Under Florida law, a breach of contract arises when
there exists (1) a valid contract; (2) a material breach of
that contract; and (3) resulting damages.” Energy Smart
Indus., LLC v. Morning Views Hotels–Beverly Hills, LLC, 660
Fed. Appx. 859, 862 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Beck v. Lazard
Freres & Co., LLC, 175 F.3d 913, 914 (11th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The elements of
a valid contract require: (1) an offer; (2) acceptance of the
offer; (3) consideration; and (4) sufficient specification of
the essential terms of the agreement.” Merlin Petroleum Co.,
Inc. v. Sarabia, No. 8:16-cv-1000-T-30TBM, 2016 WL 6947385,
at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2016).
“A claim for unjust enrichment has three elements: (1)
the plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2)
the defendant voluntarily accepted and retained that benefit;
and (3) the circumstances are such that it would be
inequitable for the defendants to retain it without paying
the value thereof.” Virgilio v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 680 F.3d
1329, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012).
“A cause of action for fraud in the inducement contains
four elements: (1) a false statement regarding a material
fact; (2) the statement maker’s knowledge that the
8
representation is false; (3) intent that the representation
induces another’s reliance; and (4) consequent injury to the
party acting in reliance.” PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay
Beach Const., N.V., 598 F.3d 802, 808-09 (11th Cir. 2010)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
And, with respect to Count IV:
[c]onversion is an act of dominion wrongfully asserted over another’s property inconsistent with his ownership therein. . . . The tort may occur where a person wrongfully refuses to relinquish property to which another has the right of possession, and it may be established despite evidence that the defendant took or retained property based upon the mistaken belief that he had a right to possession, since malice is not an essential element of the action.
United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1270 (11th Cir.
2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
After having reviewed the Complaint’s well-pled
allegations, which by virtue of its default Luna is deemed to
admit, and the attachments thereto in the light of the
foregoing elements of the various causes of action, the Court
finds that Premier Gaming Trailers is entitled to the entry
of final default judgment. As established by Bekhor’s
affidavit, the bid identified as Solicitation Number W9124D-
16-T-0038 was for 157 units. (Doc. # 13-1 at ¶¶ 2, 6, 9).
Furthermore, Bekhor’s affidavit establishes that Premier
9
Gaming Trailers “was entitled to $7,619.00 for each” unit.
(Id. at ¶ 9). Thus, Premier Gaming Trailers is entitled to an
award of $1,196,183 (calculated as $7,619 multiplied by 157).
Premier Gaming Trailers also seeks costs totaling $824.02 for
costs. (Doc. # 13 at 7).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Plaintiff Premier Gaming Trailers LLC’s Motion for Final
Default Judgment on Complaint (Doc. # 13) is GRANTED.
(2) The Clerk is directed to enter default judgment in favor
of Plaintiff Premier Gaming Trailers LLC and against
Defendant Luna Diversified Enterprises, Inc. in the
amount of $1,196,183 in damages plus $824.02 in costs,
which shall accrue post-judgment interest at the federal
statutory rate, for which sum let execution issue.
(3) Once judgment is entered, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE
this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
24th day of February, 2017.
Top Related