Lexington Properties NJ LLC v. S R Renovations LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEXINGTON PROPERTIES NJ LLC, ] ] Plaintiff, ] ] v. ] Case No.: 2:23-cv-00993-ACA ] S.R. RENOVATIONS LLC, ] ] Defendant. ]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER At the motion hearing on April 3, 2025, the court vacated its previous memorandum opinion and order on Plaintiff Lexington Properties NJ LLC’s first amended motion for default judgment (doc. 29), and denied as moot Lexington Properties’s first amended motion for default judgment (doc. 25). Consistent with the court’s rulings from the bench, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Lexington Properties’s second amended motion for default judgment. (Doc. 39). Adopting the facts and the court’s analysis from its previous memorandum opinion (doc. 29 at 6–8), the court GRANTS Lexington Properties’s motion with respect to Defendant S.R. Renovations’s liability for negligent construction and/or renovation (“Count One”; doc. 27 ¶¶ 10–19). But the court DENIES liability as to Lexington Properties’s other claims because Lexington Properties’s second amended motion for default judgment fails to explain how its amended complaint states claims for negligence in repair; negligence in hiring, supervision, and training;

suppression; fraudulent misrepresentation and/or innocent misrepresentation; and conversion against S.R. Renovations; and the court finds that the amended complaint is not well-pleaded as to those claims. See Nishimatsu Contr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l

Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975) (Despite the entry of a default, “[t]he defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.”);1 (see generally doc. 39 (providing no argument as to how the amended complaint states claims under those causes of action)). Finally, consistent with

discussions at the hearing, the court GRANTS Lexington Properties’s request for damages in the amount of $156,549.562 but DENIES its requests for damages in other amounts.

Accordingly, the court WILL ENTER FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Lexington Properties and against S.R. Renovations on the negligence in construction/renovation claim asserted in Count One (doc. 27 ¶¶ 10–19), in the amount of $156,549.56 (see doc. 44-1).

1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981.

2 Although counsel for Lexington Properties stated in the hearing that the relevant invoices totaled $145,549.58, the court’s calculation comes out to $156,149.56. (See doc. 44-1) ($12,600 + $12,600 + $21,917.50 + $39,275 + $57,173.59 + $12,983.47 = $156,549.56). DONE and ORDERED this April 7, 2025.

ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE