Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC v. Morrison
6:16-cv-01804
M.D. Fla.Apr 13, 2017Background
- Balfour Beatty, general contractor on a Walt Disney World pool rehab, deposited $102,590.25 into the court registry after its subcontractor Lake Mechanical failed to pay downstream subcontractors.
- Balfour Beatty filed an interpleader/complaint (Second Amended Complaint) seeking determination of entitlement to the funds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 and 28 U.S.C. § 1335.
- Many named subcontractor defendants were served but failed to answer the Second Amended Complaint; several answered and raised cross-claims (notably Lapin Sheet Metal, Higgins, and Stan Weaver).
- Lapin Sheet Metal filed cross-claims asserting an equitable lien and breach of contract and moved for clerk’s default against cross-defendants who did not respond to its cross-claim.
- Balfour Beatty and Lapin each moved for clerk’s default against multiple defendants; the Court evaluated whether service was proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and applicable state law.
- The Court granted defaults where service was proved and responses were untimely, and denied (without prejudice) or denied for lack of proof where service was defective or unproven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clerk's default should be entered for defendants who failed to answer Second Amended Complaint | Service was proper on listed registered agents/officers and defendants did not respond within the required time | Some defendants argue lack of proper service or service at wrong address | Court entered clerk's default for a long list of defendants where service was proven; denied default as to defendants not properly served (e.g., Sunbelt, Fastec) |
| Whether service on New Era Lending via New York Secretary of State was effective | Service under New York law on authorized agent in Secretary of State's office was proper | No effective challenge recorded | Court held service on NY Secretary of State was proper and default entry was appropriate |
| Whether service on Sunbelt Rentals (attempt at wrong address) was effective | Plaintiff relied on attempted service at an address different from registered-agent address | Defendant contended service was improper because attempted at different address without explanation | Court denied default without prejudice due to service at incorrect address and lack of explanation |
| Whether Lapin's cross-claims were properly served by mail and defaults should be entered | Lapin mailed cross-claims to cross-defendants and they failed to respond within Rule 5/Rule 12 timeframes | Some cross-defendants (e.g., Trane) not shown to have been served | Court granted clerk's default on cross-claims where certificate of service established mailing; denied as to cross-defendants lacking proof of service (e.g., Trane) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Florida, [citation="233 F. App'x 883"] (11th Cir.) (federal rules require clerk to enter default when service is proper and defendant fails to respond)
- Perkins v. 686 Halsey Food Corp., 829 N.Y.S.2d 185 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (service on Secretary of State or authorized agent under state law can be effective for foreign entity service)