E & C Copiers Export-Import Corp. v. Arizas Fotocopiadoras S.A.S
1:15-cv-21693-MGC
| S.D. Fla. | Nov 30, 2015Background
- Plaintiff E & C Copiers sold and exported photocopiers to defendant Nubia Ariza Castiblanco and two Colombian companies (Arizas Fotocopiadoras S.A.S. and Arizas Fotocopiadoras Ltda.) from 2009 onward.
- Transactions were documented by invoices; defendants repeatedly requested extended payment terms or payment “anticipado.”
- Ten invoices from 2012–2013 remained unpaid, totaling $629,111.00.
- Plaintiff sued in federal court (S.D. Fla.) asserting breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and civil conspiracy, served defendants abroad, and obtained a clerk’s default for failure to respond.
- Plaintiff moved for default judgment seeking $629,111 in compensatory damages and $1,887,333 in punitive damages.
- The court entered default judgment on the breach of contract claim for $629,111 plus post-judgment interest, but denied default judgment on the fraud-related counts and denied punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants breached contracts and the amount of damages | Invoices created valid contracts; defendants failed to pay ten invoices; liquidated damages equal $629,111 | (No response; default entered) | Default judgment granted on Count I; damages awarded $629,111 plus post-judgment interest |
| Whether fraud-based claims (fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, fraud) were adequately pleaded under Rule 9(b) | Alleged that Castiblanco made statements of intent/ability to pay and certified debt in writing; plaintiff continued shipments relying on those statements | (No response; Court still evaluates pleading sufficiency) | Motion denied as to Counts II–IV and V for failure to plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b) |
| Whether civil conspiracy to defraud was sufficiently alleged | Alleged all defendants assisted Castiblanco in making false statements about payment ability/solvency | (No response) | Denied for failure to identify who made what statements, when, and how each defendant participated |
| Whether punitive damages are recoverable | Sought punitive damages arguing conduct supported tortious/exemplary damages in addition to contract recovery | (No response) | Denied: plaintiff failed to allege or show malice, wantonness, or other requisite culpability for punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) (default admits well-pleaded factual allegations)
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (facts in complaint are admitted by default, but conclusions of law are not)
- Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement Against Racism and the Klan, 777 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1985) (granting default judgment is within court’s discretion)
- Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2006) (Rule 9(b) particularity standard for fraud pleadings)
- Beck v. Lazard Freres & Co., LLC, 175 F.3d 913 (11th Cir. 1999) (elements of breach of contract under Florida law)
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Griffin, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (damages may be awarded without hearing when amount is liquidated or ascertainable)
- Griffith v. Shamrock Village, Fla., 94 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1957) (punitive damages may be awarded when tort independent of breach is alleged with malice or wantonness)
- Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co., Inc., 339 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1976) (intentional wrong required for exemplary damages)