Capital Solutions Bancorp LLC v. Prestige Facilities Services Group, Inc. et al, No. 2:2017cv00301 - Document 32 (M.D. Fla. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER redacting 15 Third-party Complaint to incorporate only the relevant factual allegations as set forth in the Opinion and Order; granting 31 Third-Party Motion for Default Judgment in favor of Target Corporation and against Pr estige Facilities Services Group, Inc. in the amount of $577,000, for total damages on all counts, with post-judgment interest accruing at the applicable legal rate upon the entry of judgment until paid. The Clerk shall withhold the entry of judgment until the conclusion of the case but terminate third-party defendant Prestige Facilities Services Group, Inc. as an active party in the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 2/6/2018. (RKR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Capital Solutions Bancorp LLC v. Prestige Facilities Services Group, Inc. et al Doc. 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION TARGET CORPORATION, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:17-cv-301-FtM-99MRM PRESTIGE FACILITIES SERVICES GROUP, INC. and GIUSEPPE TROMBA, Third Party Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on third-party plaintiff Target Corporation's Motion for Default Judgment Against Prestige Facilities Services Group, Inc. (Doc. #31) filed on December 18, 2017. No response has been filed by either third-party defendant, and the time to respond has expired. I. On June 2, 2017, defendant Target Corporation (Target) removed a suit filed by Capital Solutions Bancorp LLC (Capital) from Lee County Circuit Court to federal court. Target filed an Answer (Doc. #9), and on June 23, 2017, Target filed a Third-Party Complaint (Doc. #15) against Prestige Facilities Services Group, Inc. (Prestige) and Giuseppe Tromba (or Joe Tromba). Target reached a settlement, and the original Capital and Complaint was Dockets.Justia.com dismissed with prejudice. Only the third party complaint remains before the Court. On October 13, 2017, the Court ordered the Answer (Doc. #22) filed by Tromba on behalf of himself and Prestige stricken, and directed Tromba to file an amended answer on only his own behalf, and for Prestige to file an amended answer only through counsel. (Doc. #25.) Defendant Giuseppe Tromba filed an Amended Answer (Doc. #27) on his own behalf, however Prestige did not file an appearance or amended answer through counsel. Consequently, Target moved for and was granted a default against Prestige. (Docs. ## 28-29.) On December 6, 2017, a Clerk’s Entry of Default (Doc. #30) was issued, and Target now seeks a default judgment against Prestige under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). A. Third Party Complaint Prestige is deemed to have admitted only the well-pled factual allegations in the Third-party Complaint, which are as follows: Target contracted with Prestige Facilities Services Group, Inc. (Prestige) to construct gender-neutral bathrooms in its Minnesota stores pursuant to a Program Agreement for Goods and Services (Program Agreement). Pursuant to the Program Agreement, among other things Prestige was required to pay all subcontractors hired, to take no action to cause a lien to be filed against Target or any Target asset, to ensure that no liens were filed against any - 2 - Target property for services performed or materials provided, and to take prompt action to release any lien filed against Target. Target alleges subcontractors. Program Prestige hired a number of Target paid Prestige all amounts due under the Agreement, subcontractors. that however Prestige failed to pay the Pursuant to a Minnesota Statute, liens attached to Target’s real property when the subcontractors were not paid. Target alleges that Prestige breached its obligations under the Program Agreement by failing to pay the subcontractors, and causing the liens on Target’s property to exist. Without Target’s knowledge, Prestige entered into an Accounts Receivable Purchase Agreement with Capital Solutions Bancorp, LLC (Capital), and assigned its accounts receivable from Target to Capital. entitled Target to the inquired as to whether payments, to which Capital Prestige was replied indeed in the negative, stating that Capital did not represent the company in any capacity and payments should still be made to Prestige. Joe Tromba responded that Capital was making false representations regarding the relationship which did not exist. As a result, Target made payments totaling $577,732 to Prestige, for which they were sued by Capital for failure to pay under the assignment. Target asserts a breach of the Program Agreement (Doc. #151, Exh. A), which is attached to - 3 - the Third-Party Complaint, intentional misrepresentation, against Prestige. and negligent misrepresentation The Declaration of Joel Peters (Doc. #31-1, Exh. 1), an employee of Target, provides a break down of the amounts paid to Capital and each of the alleged subcontractors. Attached to the Declaration are the invoices for the payments. Target seeks a total of $577,000 in damages based on the payments it made. B. Applicable Law When a defendant plaintiff’s defaults, well-pleaded it is allegations “deemed of conclusions of law or facts not well-pleaded. to admit the but not facts,” Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Foundation, 789 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2015). To warrant a default judgment, the facts alleged in the pleadings must provide a sufficient basis for judgment. Id. (quoting Nishimatsu Const. Co., Ltd. V. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). The sufficiency standard is that “necessary to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Id. II. A. Count I, Breach of Contract In Count I, Target asserts a breach of the Program Agreement by Prestige by its failure to prevent or remove liens from Target’s properties. Target alleges that - 4 - Prestige failed to pay the subcontractors after being paid in full by Target, which resulted in liens being filed against Target by the subcontractors. Target argues that Prestige breached the Program Agreement by failing to then take swift action to remove and release all liens, and Target suffered damages. Target relies on paragraph 7.4 of the Program Agreement, which states: Supplier will take no action to cause a lien to be placed or filed against Target or any Target asset, including any real estate owned, controlled, or leased by Target (collectively, “Target Property”). In addition, Supplier will ensure that no liens related to Services performed or materials provided under this Program Agreement are filed against any Target Property. Supplier waives any right it may have to file a lien against any Target Property, such waiver being given with full knowledge and understanding that Supplier is looking only to Target for payment under this Program Agreement. Supplier must cause any lien that may be filed against any Target Property to be promptly released and/or bonded against and/or discharged of record. (Doc. #15-1, Exh. A, pp. 3-4.) total of $444,680.41 Prestige. allegations amounts allegedly owed to them by Target did not attach proof of the liens, however the in subcontractors Guerriero’s for Target paid the subcontractors a the and Third-Party the Complaint subcontractors Construction, Ellingson that include, Prestige Plumbing, among Heating, hired others, A/C & Electrical, Flare Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., Life Safety - 5 - Systems, Inc. and Summit Companies are deemed admitted. (Doc. #15, ¶¶ 13- 14.) Guerreiros Construction corresponded directly with Target to request payment to Prestige as the general contractor, so they could in turn be paid, and Tromba admitted there was a work-forhire agreement with Guerreiros Construction in his Amended Answer. (Doc. #15-2, Exh. B, p. 6; Doc. #27, ¶ 4.) a total of $278,306.35. Target paid Guerreiros (Doc. #31-1, Exh. A, p. 6.) Target provided the invoice for this payment, along with the invoices for the other payments in the amount of $158,879.06 to Ellingson, $7,495.00 to Summit, and an additional $132,319.59 to Capital for the settlement. The motion for a default judgment as to Count I will be granted. B. Counts II and III In Counts II and III, Target alleges intentional and negligent misrepresentation, respectively, against both Prestige and Tromba individually. Target alleges that defendants falsely represented that they had no relationship with Capital, or breached the duty of care to supply accurate information; and that defendants knew that the representation was false at the time it was made, and they intended to have Target reply on the misrepresentation to induce direct payment to Prestige and not Capital, or that Prestige made the representation without exercising a reasonable duty of - 6 - care. Target alleges that it reasonably or justifiably relied on the misrepresentation in deciding to pay Prestige, and suffered damage as a result of the fraud. Attached to the Third-Party Complaint is an e-mail chain reflecting a response from Prestige stating: “I apologize for [Capital’s] nonsense and false representations. I’m not sure what they’re thinking, but my attorney will put an end to it. not represent my company in any capacity.” p. 2.) They do (Doc. #15-2, Exh. B, Prestige also indicated that all payments would still be made to Prestige, and it did not know why Capital was contacting Target. (Id.) The original Complaint filed by Capital attached the Accounts Receivable Purchase Agreement with Prestige. #2-1, Exh. A.) (Doc. Target paid Capital $132,319.59 to settle its claims against Target, after having paid Prestige the total amount under the Program Agreement. (Doc. #31-1, Exh. D, p. 12.) Based on the allegations, it would appear that Target is entitled to judgment as to Counts II and III against Prestige for the amount paid to Capital. The motion will be granted as to these counts. The Court notes that Counts II and III are fully incorporated into all preceding paragraphs, including Count I, resulting in a shotgun pleading condemned by the Eleventh Circuit. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th - 7 - Cir. 2015). When faced with a pleading containing “irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions”, Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002), the Court has an obligation to exercise its “inherent power to manage its docket”, and direct that the complaint be repleaded. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321 n.10. In this case, the Court will redact the paragraphs that incorporate all preceding paragraphs to rectify the error. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Third-Party incorporate only Complaint the (Doc. relevant allegations as follows: #15) and is redacted applicable to factual Paragraph 27 shall incorporate only paragraphs 8 through 17 and paragraphs 31 and 37 shall only incorporate paragraphs 18 through 26. 2. Third-Party Default Plaintiff Judgment Target Against Corporation’s Prestige Motion Facilities for Services Group, Inc. (Doc. #31) is GRANTED in favor of Target Corporation and against Prestige Facilities Services Group, Inc. in the amount of $577,000, for total damages on all counts, with post-judgment interest accruing at the applicable legal rate upon the entry of judgment until paid. The Clerk shall withhold the entry of judgment until - 8 - the conclusion of the case but terminate third-party defendant Prestige Facilities Services Group, Inc. as an active party in the case. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this February, 2018. Copies: Counsel of Record - 9 - 6th day of
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
