It Works Marketing, Inc. v. Kaufmann

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedJanuary 3, 2025
Docket8:24-cv-01841
StatusUnknown

This text of It Works Marketing, Inc. v. Kaufmann (It Works Marketing, Inc. v. Kaufmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
It Works Marketing, Inc. v. Kaufmann, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

IT WORKS MARKETING, INC.,

Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 8:24-cv-1841-TPB-AAS

TAYLOR KAUFMANN,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff It Works Marketing, Inc. moves for entry of a default judgment and to confirm its arbitration award. (Doc. 11). Defendant Taylor Kaufmann does not oppose the motion. (Id., p. 6). For the reasons addressed below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the plaintiff’s motion be GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Following a three-day final arbitration hearing, an arbitrator entered an award, finding the plaintiff is the prevailing party and awarding the plaintiff injunctive relief and $697,218.48 in damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 19-20). On August 5, 2024, the plaintiff filed a complaint requesting that the court confirm the arbitration award and for final judgment. (Doc. 1). The defendant consented to the entry of a final judgment. (Id., p. 14). On October 22, 2024, the court ordered the plaintiff to file a motion for a clerk’s default. (Doc. 7). On October 29, 2024, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for entry of a clerk’s default, which was granted. (See Docs. 8, 9, 10). The plaintiff now files this unopposed motion for entry of a default final judgment

confirming the arbitration award entered in the underlying arbitration against the defendant for $697,218.48. (Doc. 11). II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) allows default judgment entry

upon a party’s motion. The court may enter default judgment “‘against a defendant who never appears or answers a complaint, for in such circumstances the case has never been placed at issue.’” Prince Advance Funding, LLC v. Lizzano Auto. Grp., LLC, No. 23-60026-CIV, 2023 WL

6609326, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 23-CV-60026, 2023 WL 6585248 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2023) (quoting Solaroll Shade and Shutter Corp., Inc. v. Bio-Energy Sys., Inc., 803 F.2d 1130, 1134 (11th Cir. 1986)). Entry of default judgment is warranted where there is a

sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment to be entered. Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2015). “The standard for entry of default judgment is ‘akin to that necessary to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim . . . [so] a motion for default judgment is like

a reverse motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.’” Substation Enters., Inc. v. Sayers Constr., LLC, No. 6:21-CV-1634-DCI, 2023 WL 23101, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2023) (quoting Surtain, 789 F.3d at 1245). A “defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact” as outlined in the operative complaint. See Eagle Hosp.

Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009). If the plaintiff's claims are for a sum made certain by affidavit, the Clerk of Court “must enter judgment for that amount.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1). “With regard to the measure of damages, the allegations contained in the complaint

are not considered admissions by virtue of the default; [rather], the Court determines the amount and character of damages to be awarded.” Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Anadisk, LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 1310 (S.D. Fla. 2010). The court may enter a default judgment awarding damages without a

hearing where “the amount claimed is a liquidated sum or one capable of mathematical calculation.” Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement Against Racism and the Klan, 777 F.2d 1538, 1543-44 (11th Cir. 1986) (quoting United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854 (5th Cir. 1979)). In the context of a default judgment

based on an arbitration award, no hearing is necessary where the arbitration award includes a fixed damages amount. See Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Gutierrez, No: 6:16-cv-1695-Orl-41DCI, 2017 WL 6939208, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2017) (recommending confirmation of

arbitration award and entry of default judgment without hearing, finding that “there is no need to conduct an evidentiary hearing on damages because the amounts awarded by the arbitrator . . . are liquidated, as reflected in the Award.”); see also Pott v. World Cap. Properties, Ltd., No. 21-23942-CIV- LENARD, 2021 WL 9204019, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2021) (granting motion

for entry of default final judgment and determining damages based on arbitration award); Landstar Ligon, Inc. v. NTL Agency, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-657- J-32TEM, 2012 WL 13136839, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2012) (same). III. ANALYSIS

The plaintiff requests confirmation of the arbitration award and a final judgment conforming with the provisions of the award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). As part of the FAA, “‘9 U.S.C. § 9 provides, in relevant part, that any party to arbitration may apply to the court for an order

confirming an arbitration award within one year after the award is made.” Wachovia Sec., LLC v. Fink, No. 07-80575, 2007 WL 9747559, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2007), report and recommendation adopted sub nom., Wachovia Sec., LLC v. Fink, No. 07-80575, 2008 WL 11468218 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2008). “The

court must confirm the award unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected under Sections 10 or 11.” Id. (citing 9 U.S.C. § 9). “Under 9 U.S.C. § 12, [the defendant] ha[s] three months from the [date of the] Arbitration Award in which to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award.” Id.

The threshold requirements to confirm the arbitration award have been met. The arbitration award was issued on July 16, 2024. (Doc. 1-1). The plaintiff filed this action on August 5, 2024, within the one-year requirement. There have been no attempts to vacate, modify, or correct the award, and the time to do so has passed.

“Once the initial requirements of 9 U.S.C. § 9 are met, venue and jurisdiction must be examined.” Id. (citing Webusenet, Inc. v. Ringdahl, No. 05- 80063, 2006 WL 8445640, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 6, 2006), report and recommendation adopted in part, No. 05-80063, 2006 WL 8445639 (S.D. Fla.

Aug. 24, 2006)). The plaintiff is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Palmetto, Florida, and the defendant resides in South Carolina. (Doc. 1-4, p. 6; Doc. 1-5). The arbitration award is $311,652.00 in compensatory damages exclusive of interest and costs—over the $75,000.00 jurisdictional

amount. (Doc. 1-1, p. 19). As a result, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding based on diversity. 28 U.S.C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
It Works Marketing, Inc. v. Kaufmann, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/it-works-marketing-inc-v-kaufmann-flmd-2025.