State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Altamonte Springs Diagnostic Imaging, Inc.
6:11-cv-01373
M.D. Fla.Oct 1, 2012Background
- State Farm sues ASDI, Landau, Fremed for fraud, unjust enrichment, FDUTPA, and RICO-related claims over allegedly fraudulent MRI bills.
- Landau, a physician, allegedly misrepresented ownership of ASDI; Fremed allegedly co-owned ASDI in violation of Florida statutes.
- Fremed has defaulted; ASDI and Landau defend; State Farm moves for non-final default judgment against Fremed.
- State Farm offers Banahan declaration identifying over $1.17 million in allegedly fraudulent claims paid by State Farm.
- Court discusses Rule 55, Servicemembers Civil Relief Act compliance, and whether to enter a non-final default judgment against Fremed.
- Court recommends granting default judgment against Fremed for $1,173,025.10 as interlocutory/non-final and not to collaterally estop Landau/ASDI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment is proper against Fremed. | State Farm asserts sufficient pleading and proper service; Fremed defaulted. | ASDI/Landau contend issues require full adjudication; Fremed’s default should be limited. | Yes; default judgment appropriate against Fremed, non-final in nature. |
| Whether State Farm adequately pled a basis for default judgment across five counts. | State Farm has pled fraud, unjust enrichment, FDUTPA, and RICO with factual bases. | Defendants argue insufficiency or scope of pleading. | Counts I–V adequately plead a basis for default judgment. |
| Whether Service Members Civil Relief Act compliance is satisfied for default judgment. | Return states Fremed not in military; Banahan declaration insufficient but service record adequate. | Banahan lacks factual support per § 520; service record disputed. | Satisfies the Act; service record supports non-final default judgment. |
| Whether the judgment should be final or non-final as to Fremed, Landau, and ASDI. | State Farm seeks non-final default judgment to avoid collateral estoppel while claims against others are litigated. | Landau/ASDI would be prejudiced by a non-final disposition preventing complete adjudication. | Non-final/default judgment appropriate; not a final determination to avoid inconsistent collateral results. |
| Whether post-judgment interest accrues on a non-final default judgment. | State Farm seeks post-judgment interest accrual; Eleventh Circuit not addressing non-final context. | Interest accrual issues unsettled for non-final judgments. | Not addressed further; recommendation notes potential accrual but not resolved here. |
Key Cases Cited
- DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trawick, 359 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (M.D. Ala. 2005) (default does not mandate entry of a default judgment; needs proper pleadings)
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (default does not equal confession of liability)
- Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (assessing sufficiency of complaint to support default judgment)
- Bush v. Balfour Beatty Bahamas, Ltd., 62 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 1995) (collateral estoppel concerns with default judgments in related actions)
- Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956) (district court may determine time when final decisions on fewer than all claims are ready for appeal)
- BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir. 1994) (interest accrual from final judgment; discussion of non-final order context)