United States of America for the use of Terry Bedford Concerete Construction, Inc. v. Argonaut Insurance Company

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE Case No. 1:23-cv-00130-JLT-CDB USE OF TERRY BEDFORD CONCRETE ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING CROSS CLAIMANT ARGONAUT INSURANCE v. COMPANY’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST RMA GEOSCIENCE, INC. (Docs. 22, 55) Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON STIPULATION DISCHARGING AND DISMISSING CROSS CLAIMANT ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY (Docs. 42, 55)

Cross Claimant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, INC, et al. Cross Defendants. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant the United States of America for the use of Terry Bedford Concrete Construction, Inc. (“Terry Bedford”) seeks to recover from Argonaut Insurance Company (“Argonaut”) pursuant to a Miller Act Payment Bond. (Doc. 1); 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131-3134. Argonaut filed a cross claim in interpleader against Terry Bedford, Marina Landscape, Inc., Armadillo Concrete Resurfacing, RMA GeoScience, Inc. (“RMA”), Marz Remodeling, and 7J Construction (collectively “Cross Defendants”). (Doc. 7-1.) Pursuant to Court order, Argonaut deposited $221,438.98 in interpleader funds into the Court registry. (Docs. 19, 39.) On May 10, 2023, the Clerk of Court entered default against RMA. (Docs. 18, 21.) Argonaut then moved for default judgment against RMA. (Doc. 22.) On October 9, 2023, Argonaut filed a stipulation for discharge and dismissal signed by all appearing parties. (Doc. 42.) On November 20, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations (1) to grant Argonaut’s motion for default judgment as to RMA and, on the appearing parties’ stipulation, (2) to discharge and dismiss Argonaut. (Doc. 50.) On January 18, 2024, the Court issued amended Findings and Recommendations to clarify the basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 55.) The amended Findings and Recommendations advised the parties that they must file any objections within 14 days and that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of fights on appeal.” (Doc. 55 at 13) (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). No party filed objections or any other response and the deadline to do so has passed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the amended Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The January 18, 2024, amended Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 55) are 2. Argonaut’s motion for default judgment as to Cross Defendant RMA (Doc. 22) is 3. Cross Defendant RMA shall take $0.00 for its Miller Act Payment Bond claim and 1 RMA forfeits said claim by way of default. 4. Argonaut’s stipulated request for discharge and dismissal of Argonaut (Doc. 42-1) is 5. Argonaut is exonerated and dismissed from this action, in its entirety, with prejudice, and all parties to the stipulation, and others with potential claims that have not yet bee! made, be forever barred, and restrained from instituting any other action against Argonaut in any court, against or in any way related to the Miller Act Payment Bond. 6. Argonaut is awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in bringing its action in interpleader in the amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000), which amount shall be paid by the Clerk of the Court from the amount currently on deposit. 7. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to issue an order/judgment pertaining to the distribution of the interpleaded funds in the event of a settlement of the interpleader cause of action by the adverse claimants to the interpleaded funds. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 9, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE