IberiaBank v. Coconut 41, LLC
984 F. Supp. 2d 1283
M.D. Ala.2013Background
- This case arises from the failed Coconut Crossing master plan development, a mixed-use retail project.
- The last remaining parties with unresolved claims are Westwind Contracting, HG Coconut, and IberiaBank.
- FDIC-R removed the case to federal court; after settlement, jurisdiction issues were revisited, with Lindley v. FDIC guiding the result.
- IberiaBank challenges subject-matter jurisdiction over HG Coconut’s breach-of-contract claim.
- The court bifurcates the case into Westwind’s claims against HG Coconut, HG Coconut’s counterclaims against Westwind, and HG Coconut’s claim against IberiaBank.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction post-dismissal of FDIC-R | IberiaBank contends jurisdiction remains; FDIC-R removal preserved it | Court should have dismissed; Lindley supports continued jurisdiction | Court remains in federal jurisdiction per Lindley v. FDIC |
| Enforcement of Westwind’s lien vs. HG Coconut | Westwind seeks lien enforcement for unpaid off-site work | HG Coconut argues lien improper/unpaid amount; seeks relief | HG Coconut awarded partial judgment on Count I; Westwind takes nothing on that count; Count II awarded to Westwind |
| Unjust enrichment claim by Westwind against HG Coconut | Westwind seeks payment for benefits conferred | HG Coconut argues no contract and defenses to enrichment | Judgment for Westwind on Count II with damages calculated; offset for minor remaining work |
| HG Coconut’s counterclaims against Westwind (fraudulent lien, slander of title, conversion) | HG Coconut claims improper lien and damages | Westwind asserts good faith and proper conduct; lien valid | Fraudulent lien claim dismissed; slander of title and conversion against Westwind dismissed; HG Coconut takes nothing |
| HG Coconut’s claim against IberiaBank for breach of the Settlement/Infrastructure Agreement | HG Coconut asserts breach by Orion Bank/IberiaBank | FDIC-related exhaustion and D’Oench defenses bar claim | Claim dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; alternatively D’Oench doctrine bars claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindley v. FDIC, 733 F.3d 1043 (11th Cir. 2013) (determines jurisdiction when FDIC is party to suit and later dismissed)
- Casa Linda Tile & Marble Installers, Inc. v. Highlands Place 1981 Ltd., 642 So.2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (substantial completion doctrine in lien recovery)
- Sam Rodgers Props., Inc. v. Chmura, 61 So.3d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (willful exaggeration required for fraudulent lien defense)
- Sharrard v. Ligon, 892 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (elements of fraudulent lien and consideration of counsel)
- D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447 (U.S. 1942) (doctrine preventing enforcement of unwritten agreements against the FDIC)