AMERICAN BARASSOCIATION’S SECTION OF PUBLIC CONTRACT LAWSUBCONTRACTING, TEAMING, AND STRATEGIC ALLIANCES COMMITTEE

AGENDA FORMEETING DATEDWEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2017, 12:00 – 1:00 PM EASTERN

TELECONFERENCE: DIAL IN: 1-866-381-8626, PASSCODE: 826431

PLEASE NOTE THAT OURWEBINAR TECHNOLOGY FOR OUR MEETINGS MAYAUTO-GENERATE A DIFFERENT NUMBER, FOR OUR CALL PLEASE

REMEMBER TO USE THIS DIAL-IN NUMBER: 1-866-381-8626, PASSCODE: 826431.

Call to Order and Introductory Remarks

• Steve Kaye, Hartmann Young

Legislative Report

• Alan Chvotkin

Presentation and Discussion

• Michael Mutek, Steptoe & Johnson, will present on Premier Gaming Trailers, LLC v.Luna Diversified Enterprises, Inc., in which a million dollar judgment was enteredagainst a prime contractor that left its teaming partner at the altar and terminated therelationship after receiving an Army prime contract.

Regulatory Update

• TBD

Other Business

• Request for Webmaster

Adjourn

DistrictCourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarWithouta

SubcontractAmerican

BarA

ssociationSection

ofPublic

ContractLaw

Subcontracting,Team

ing,andStrategic

Alliances

Committee

April5,2017

MichaelW

.Mutek

Outline

ofPresentation

1.Introduction:W

hyisthis

caseinteresting?

�Classic

“leftataltar”scenario�Isthis

ajointventure

oraprim

e–sub

relationship?�Unjustenrichm

entisdiscussed

2.Whatw

asthe

arrangementbetw

eenthe

companies?

3.Wasenforceability

anissue?

4.The

“jointventure”appearstobeaverticalcontractor

teamarrangem

ent5.The

Courtfound

thatentitlementto

judgmenton

thecom

plaintanddam

ages6.Conclusion

Questions

&discussion

2MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

Summary

1.Arecentdefaultjudgm

entawarded

amillion

dollarsinasituation

where

agovernm

entcontractorleftitspartneratthe

altarandterm

inatedthe

relationshipafterreceiving

anArmyprim

econtract.

2.The

defendantterminated

theagreem

enttofind

aless

expensivesupplier.

3.The

USDistrictC

ourtfoundthatthe

partiesentered

intoa“joint

venture.”

4.Asaresult,the

DistrictC

ourtorderedthe

defendanttopay

$1.2million

indam

agesand

coststoitspartnerdue

tothe

failuretorecognize

theirunw

rittenagreem

ent.

PremierG

aming

Trailers,LLCv.Luna

DiversifiedEnterprises,Inc.Case

No.8:16-cv-3378-T-33TGWbefore

theUnited

StatesDistrictCourtforthe

Middle

DistrictofFlorida,Tampa

Division.

3MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

1.Introduction:Whyisthis

caseinteresting?

(A)Classic

“leftataltar”scenario

�The

scenarioofthe

firstreportedteam

ingcase

(AirTech.Corp.

v.GeneralElec.C

o.,199N.E.2d

538,547(Mass.1964)

•Where

thecourtfound

thatbeingonateam

seekingthe

award

ofanAFcontractm

eantmore

thananopportunity

tobid

ona

subcontract

�Ateam

arrangementis

a“marriage

ofconvenience”

�Parties

legallyjoined

inateam

arrangementm

aypossess

legalrights

andexpectations

which,ifunfulfilled,can

giverise

to•disputes,

•claim

s,and•legalactions

4MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

Introduction:Whyisthis

caseinteresting?

(B)Isthis

ajointventure

oraprim

e–sub

relationship?

�The

DistrictC

ourtdescribesthe

arrangementas

ajointventure•The

termwasused

inthe

Complaintto

describethe

relationship

�Itis

notclearthatthisisatrue

ajointventure,

which

isahorizontalteam

arrangement

�Instead,itm

aybeaverticalteam

arrangement

5MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

Introduction:Whyisthis

caseinteresting?

(C)Unjustenrichm

entisused

asarem

edy

�Unjustenrichm

entassertionsgenerally

notassuccessfulas

aclaim

ofbreach

ofcontractinteam

ing•

Onelaw

journalarticlenotes

“unjustenrichmentw

asunsuccessfulin

themajority

ofcases

surveyed”

�Unjustenrichm

entmaybeused

asanequitable

remedy

where

theaward

would

nothaveoccurred

butforthenonbreaching

party’sefforts

�Interesting

2007HLR

articlenotes

unjustenrichmentclaim

srarely

succeedunless

thedefendantw

rongfullyinduced

thebenefit.

•Aclaim

forunjustenrichment“do[es]notlie

simply

becauseone

partybenefits

fromthe

effortsorobligations

ofothers,butinsteaditm

ustbeshow

nthata

partywas

unjustlyenriched

inthe

sensethatthe

term‘unjustly’could

mean

illegallyor

unlawfully.”

6MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

Introduction:Whyisthis

caseinteresting?

(C)Unjustenrichm

entin3team

ingagreem

entcases(2successful):

�Trianco

v.IBM(2008)

•IBM(prim

e)solicitedTrianco

(sub)thenadvised

Triancothatits

pricingwasunacceptable

andtold

itto“rebid”

•Decision

abitstrange

butfoundthatthe

teaming

agreementw

asenforceable

tothe

extentthatitbound

theparties

tonegotiate

forasubcontractprice

ingood

faithafterthe

award

oftheprim

econtract

•Existence

ofavalid

contractprecludedaclaim

forunjustenrichmentunderN

ewYork

orPennsylvania

lawand

claimdism

issed

�InternationalCargo

Managem

entSpecialistsv.EG

&GDynatrend

(1995)•

InternationalCargo

wasnotable

toprove

theexistence

ofavalid

contract

•Wasable

torecoverthe

valueofits

work

basedonunjustenrichm

ent

�Abtv.JHPIEG

OCO

RPORATIO

N(2000)

•DefendantJH

PIEGOafteraw

ardadvised

Abtthatitw

ouldnotbe

enteringinto

acontractw

ithAbt

•Abtalleged

unjustenrichmentw

asforegoing

joiningofa

competing

team

•Testforunjustenrichm

ent=gain

bydefendantand

nottheloss

byplaintiff

•Nounjustenrichm

entwithoutevidence

establishingthe

defendant'senrichm

ent

7MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

2.Whatw

asthe

arrangementbetw

eenthe

companies?

�Prem

ierGaming

TrailersLLC

,amobile

gaming

trailerfabricatorlocated

inTam

pa,Florida,andLuna

Diversified

Enterprises

Inc.,anequipm

entsupplierandconsulting

firm,entered

intoan

agreementforthe

submission

ofbidstogovernm

entagencies

�There

wasnoform

alwritten

agreement

�Prem

ierprovidedLuna

withplans

consistingofdesigns,

features,andspecifications,as

wellas

productiontimetables

andcosts

ofproduction,andLuna

would

formally

submitthe

bids

�IfLuna

receivedacontract,P

remierw

astofabricate

thetrailers

anddeliverthem

tothe

procuringagency

�Each

partyexpected

toreceive

ashare

ofanycontractproceeds

fromthe

jointventure

8MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

Whatw

asthe

arrangementbetw

eenthe

companies?

�The

partiessubm

ittedthree

bids–

twowere

unsuccessful

�Forthe

successfulbidatissue,P

remierbelieved

itwould

receive$1,196,183,ifthe

Armycontractw

asawarded

toLuna

�When

Lunadid

notinformPrem

ieroftheresultofthe

competition,

Prem

iercontactedthe

Armyand

learnedthatLuna

hadbeen

awarded

thecontract

�Prem

ieralsolearned

thatitsinform

ationwaspartofLuna’s

bid

�Luna

acknowledged

thatithadbeen

awarded

thecontractand

toldPrem

ierthatitwasterm

inatingthe

agreementin

ordertofind

aless

expensivefabricatorthan

Prem

ier.9MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

Whatw

asthe

arrangementbetw

eenthe

companies?

�Prem

ierfiledthis

actionand

assertedclaim

sforbreach

ofcontract,unjustenrichm

ent,andfraud

inthe

inducement

�Luna

avoidedservice

ofprocessand

Prem

iereffectedservice

ofprocessby

havingthe

FloridaSecretary

ofState

acceptserviceonbehalfofLuna

�Defaultw

asentered

againstLunaonFebruary

2,2017,andafterLuna

failedto

appearormake

amotion

tosetaside

thedefault,the

DistrictC

ourtinstructedPrem

iertoproceed

withmoving

fordefaultjudgment

�The

DistrictC

ourtensuredthatthere

were

asufficientbasis

inthe

pleadingsforthe

judgmentto

beentered

�Such

ajudgm

entestablishesasfactthe

plaintiff’sallegations

andbars

thedefendant

fromcontesting

thosefacts

onappeal10

MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

3.Wasenforceability

anissue?

�Florida

lawgoverned

thisaction

�The

elements

ofavalid

contractunderFloridalaw

require:1.

anoffer,

2.acceptance

oftheoffer,

3.consideration,and

4.sufficientspecification

oftheessentialterm

softhe

agreement

�Abreach

ofcontractarisesunderFlorida

lawwhen

thefollow

ingare

established:1.

avalid

contract,2.

amaterialbreach

ofthatcontract,and3.

resultingdam

ages

11MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

Wasenforceability

anissue?

�Disputes

involvingateam

ingagreem

entmayfocus

onthe

presenceofan

enforceableagreem

ent•Exam

plesinclude

casesfrom

Virginia,which

haveaddressed

enforceability

�The

teaming

agreementm

aybedeem

edanunenforceable

agreementto

agreement

•The

determination

mayfocus

existenceofessential

terms,including

scopeofw

ork,price,andduration,

which

aresufficientto

indicateanagreem

entcapableofenforcem

ent

�Enforceability

wasnotan

issueexam

inedinthis

case.

12MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

4.The“jointventure”appears

tobea

verticalcontractorteamarrangem

ent�The

FederalAcquisition

Regulation

(FAR)at9.601

defines“contractorteam

arrangement”as

anarrangem

entinwhich:

1.Twoorm

orecom

paniesform

apartnership

orjointventureto

actasapotentialprim

econtractor;or

2.Apotentialprim

econtractoragrees

withone

ormore

othercom

paniestohave

themactas

itssubcontractors

underaspecified

governmentcontractoracquisition

program.

�Inthis

case,thearrangem

entwasnotreduced

towriting,butw

asdescribed

inthe

plaintiff’scom

plaintasa“jointventure,”and

thattermwasused

bythe

DistrictC

ourtinitsorder

�However,the

emailattached

tothe

complaintto

establishthe

“jointventure”uses

theterm

“teaming”

13MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

�Team

arrangements,as

definedinthe

FAR,can

beverticalorhorizontal

�Although

thearrangem

entinthis

caseisdescribed

asa“jointventure,”a

termthatm

aybeused

inageneric

waytodescribe

acollaborative

effort,thisresem

blesaverticalteam

arrangement,as

definedinFAR9-601(2),

•Where

theparties

intendthatthe

primecontractorw

illsubcontractwork

tothe

otherparty,•Ifthe

governmentaw

ardsacontractto

theprim

econtractor.

�Atrue

jointventureunderFA

R9-601(1)w

ouldbeahorizontalteam

arrangement

•Inthattype

ofarrangement,itis

commonforthe

jointventure,ifselected,to

receivethe

contractaward

andnotone

oftheteam

mates

14MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

The“jointventure”appears

tobea

verticalcontractorteamarrangem

ent

5.TheCourtfound

thatentitlementto

judgmenton

thecom

plaintanddam

ages�Aclaim

forunjustenrichmentin

Floridahas

threeelem

ents1.the

plaintiffhasconferred

abenefiton

thedefendant,

2.the

defendantvoluntarilyaccepted

andretained

thatbenefit;and

3.itwould

beinequitable

forthedefendants

toretain

itwithoutpaying

thevalue

�The

Complaintnoted:

•Luna

receivedthe

benefitoftheBid

Information

whichLuna

usedtoobtain

thebid

awardand

subsequentlyunilaterally

terminated

theJointVenture

Agreement.

•Luna

wasawarded

theArm

yBid

asaresultofthe

BidInform

ation,butintendsthatLuna

receiveno

compensation

forthebenefititconferred

onLuna.

•Luna

hasretained

thebenefitofthe

BidInform

ationinan

attemptto

increasecom

pensationtoLuna

receivedunderthe

ArmyBid

…

15MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

�Questions:

•Isn’ta

claimforunjustenrichm

entarequestfor

anequitable

remedy?

•Doesn’tthatm

eanthatthere

isno

contract?

�From

anarticle

onunjustenrichm

entinFlorida:

InFlorida,a

claimforunjustenrichm

entisan

equitableclaim

basedon

alegal

fictionwhich

implies

acontractas

amatteroflaw

eventhough

theparties

tosuch

animplied

contractneverindicatedthatan

agreementexisted

betweenthem

.An

actionforunjustenrichm

entcannotapplywhere

anexpress

contractexistswhich

allowsforrecover[y].

�Rememberthis

wasadefaultjudgm

ent

16MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

TheCourtfound

thatentitlementto

judgment

onthe

complaintand

damages

�Afterreview

ingwhatthe

DistrictC

ourtsaidwere

“well-pled

“allegationsinPrem

ier’scom

plaintanditsattachm

ents,•Including

aLuna

emailthatm

entioned“team

ingtogether”for

governmentcontracts,and

examining

theelem

entsofthe

causesofaction

assertedbyPrem

ier,•The

DistrictC

ourtfoundthatPrem

ierwasentitled

tothe

entryofa

finaldefaultjudgment.Italso

heldthatPrem

ierwasentitled

todam

agesof$7,619.00

foreachunit,w

hichtotaled

$1,196,183

17MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

TheCourtfound

thatentitlementto

judgment

onthe

complaintand

damages

�Whataboutthe

measure

ofdamages

usedby

theDistrictC

ourt?

�The

DistrictC

ourtawarded

thedefendantthe

totalrevenue

itshouldhave

receivedoneach

ofthetrailers.

�Isthis

awindfall?

�Whataboutcosts

ofproduction?�Would

lostprofitshave

beenabetterm

easureof

damages?

18MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

TheCourtfound

thatentitlementto

judgment

onthe

complaintand

damages

6.Conclusion

�Contractorteam

arrangements

arecom

mon

andimportanttools

forcompanies

seekinggovernm

entcontracts

�FAR

9.602notes

(a)Contractorteamarrangem

entsmay

bedesirable

fromboth

agovernm

entandindustry

standpointinorderto

enablethe

companies

involvedto—

(1)Complem

enteachother’s

uniquecapabilities;and

(2)Offerthe

governmentthe

bestcombination

ofperformance,

cost,anddelivery

forthesystem

orproductbeingacquired.

�However,w

henapartneris

leftatthealtarw

ithoutasubcontract,the

resultcanbealawsuitforbreach

oftheagreem

ent,aswellas

otherclaim

s

19MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

Questions

&Comments

20MichaelW

.Mutek

DistrictC

ourtFindsPartnerW

rongfullyLeftatthe

AltarW

ithoutaSubcontract

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION PREMIER GAMING TRAILERS LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:16-cv-3378-T-33TGW LUNA DIVERSIFIED ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant. ______________________________/

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court in consideration of

Plaintiff Premier Gaming Trailers LLC’s Motion for Final

Default Judgment on Complaint (Doc. # 13), filed on February

9, 2017. The time for filing a response has passed and no

response in opposition has been filed, nor has a motion to

set aside the default entered by the Clerk against Defendant

Luna Diversified Enterprises, Inc. been filed. For the

reasons that follow, the Court grants the Motion.

I. Background

Premier Gaming Trailers is a mobile gaming trailer

fabricator located in Tampa, Florida. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 8). On

August 26, 2016, Premier Gaming Trailers was contacted by

Luna, an equipment supplier and consulting firm, regarding a

joint venture “that involved submitting bids to certain

Premier Gaming Trailers LLC v. Luna Diversified Enterprises, Inc. Doc. 14

Dockets.Justia.com

2  

requests for quote issued by government agencies.” (Id. at ¶¶

9, 10). When there was an opportunity to bid on a request for

quote, Premier Gaming Trailers would supply Luna with “plans

consisting of the design, features, and specifications, as

well as production timetables and cost of” production and

Luna would “then take the necessary steps to formally submit

the bid.” (Id. at ¶ 11).

If the bid was awarded to Premier Gaming Trailers and

Luna, Premier Gaming Trailers was to fabricate the goods and

deliver said goods to the procuring agency. (Id. at ¶ 12).

The proceeds of any sale made in furtherance of the joint

venture were to have been apportioned per “‘Dual Check’

terms.” (Id. at ¶ 13). “The Dual Check terms provided that

[Premier Gaming Trailers] and Luna would receive separate

payments . . . in accordance with their respective

compensation terms pursuant to the Parties’ joint venture

agreement.” (Id.). The joint venture agreement was not

reduced to a formal, written contract, although “the

agreement . . . is evidence in certain communications . .

.[,] as well as the performance of the terms of the Joint

Venture Agreement by the Parties.” (Id. at ¶ 14).

In September of 2016, Marcos Morales on behalf of Luna

contacted Premier Gaming Trailers with regard to a request

3  

for quote issued by the Department of the Army, identified as

Solicitation Number W9124D-16-T-0038. (Id. at ¶ 15). Upon

full performance of services rendered with respect to

Solicitation Number W9124D-16-T-0038, the contracted party

was to receive $1,196,183. (Id. at ¶ 16).

Before jointly bidding on Solicitation Number W9124D-

16-T-0038, Premier Gaming Trailers and Luna had “joint

ventured on three other requests for quotes that were

subsequently not awarded to the Parties.” (Id. at ¶ 17). For

each of those three instances in which the bid was not awarded

to Premier Gaming Trailers and Luna, Luna informed Premier

Gaming Trailers of the failure to secure the bid. (Id.).

Premier Gaming Trailers, however, was not provided an update

with respect to Solicitation Number W9124D-16-T-0038. (Id. at

¶ 18).

“Concerned about the lack of communication coming from

Luna,” the owner and manager of Premier Gaming Trailers, Lidan

Bekhor, contacted the Army. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 19). The Army

informed Bekhor that Luna had been awarded the bid for

Solicitation Number W9124D-16-T-0038. (Id. at ¶ 20). Bekhor

was able to determine that Luna was awarded the bid based on

the information provided to Luna by Premier Gaming Trailers.

(Id. at ¶ 21). Premier Gaming Trailers’ representatives then

4  

attempted to contact Morales but to no avail; finally, Jason

Currey, a representative of Luna, answered one of Premier

Gaming Trailers’ phone calls. (Id. at ¶ 22).

Currey acknowledged that the bid for Solicitation Number

W9124D-16-T-0038 had been awarded to Luna but indicated “Luna

was unilaterally terminating the Joint Venture Agreement in

an attempt to locate a fabricator that could build the Units

at a lower cost . . . and was intending that [Premier Gaming

Trailers] receive no compensation . . . .” (Id. at ¶ 23). On

October 28, 2016, Premier Gaming Trailers served Luna with a

demand letter, informing Luna of Premier Gaming Trailers’

claims against Luna and demanding payment. (Id. at ¶ 25).

Luna did not acquiesce to Premier Gaming Trailers’ demand.

(Id. at ¶ 26).

Thereafter, on December 9, 2016, Premier Gaming Trailers

instituted this action against Luna. (Id.). Premier Gaming

Trailers’ Complaint asserts a claim for breach of the joint

venture agreement (Count I), unjust enrichment (Count II),

fraud in the inducement (Count III), and conversion (Count

IV). (Id.). Premier Gaming Trailers “attempted to serve Luna

via process server, but was ultimately unsuccessful.” (Doc.

# 10 at ¶ 3). Then, relying on Section 48.161, Fla. Stat.,

and Hansen Beverage Company v. Consolidated Distributors,

5  

Inc., No. 6:11-cv-329-Orl-22DAB, 2012 WL 12903172 (M.D. Fla.

Jan. 30, 2012), Premier Gaming Trailers effected service of

process upon Luna by having the Florida Secretary of State

accept service on behalf of Luna. (Doc. # 10 at ¶ 6). On

January 18, 2017, Premier Gaming Trailers sent Luna the alias

summons issued on January 4, 2017, the Complaint, and a notice

that the Florida Secretary of State had accepted service of

the alias summons via certified mail. (Id. at ¶ 7). Premier

Gaming Trailers has not received Luna’s return receipt.

(Id.). Premier Gaming Trailers specifically averred that

“[u]pon information and belief, Luna has been actively

avoiding service.” (Id. at ¶ 8).

As such, Premier Gaming Trailers applied to the Clerk of

Court for entry of Clerk’s Default on February 1, 2017. (Id.).

The Clerk entered default against Luna on February 2, 2017.

(Doc. # 11). A week later, having received no appearance from

Luna or motion to set aside the default, the Court instructed

Premier Gaming Trailers to proceed with moving for default

judgment. (Doc. # 12). On February 9, 2017, Premier Gaming

Trailers filed the instant Motion seeking default judgment

against Luna. (Doc. # 13). The time for filing a response to

the Motion has passed and Luna failed to respond in

6  

opposition. Likewise, Luna has not moved to set aside the

Clerk’s Default or otherwise appeared before this Court.

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides: “When a

party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought

has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is

shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the

party’s default.” A district court may enter a default

judgment against a properly served defendant who fails to

defend or otherwise appear pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 55(b)(2). DirecTV, Inc. v. Griffin, 290 F. Supp. 2d

1340, 1343 (M.D. Fla. 2003).

The mere entry of a default by the Clerk does not, in

itself, warrant the Court entering a default judgment. See

Tyco Fire & Sec. LLC v. Alcocer, 218 Fed. Appx. 860, 863 (11th

Cir. 2007) (citing Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Hous. Nat’l Bank,

515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). Rather, a Court must

ensure that there is a sufficient basis in the pleadings for

the judgment to be entered. Id. A default judgment has the

effect of establishing as fact the plaintiff’s well-pled

allegations of fact and bars the defendant from contesting

those facts on appeal. Id.

7  

III. Discussion

“Under Florida law, a breach of contract arises when

there exists (1) a valid contract; (2) a material breach of

that contract; and (3) resulting damages.” Energy Smart

Indus., LLC v. Morning Views Hotels–Beverly Hills, LLC, 660

Fed. Appx. 859, 862 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Beck v. Lazard

Freres & Co., LLC, 175 F.3d 913, 914 (11th Cir. 1999) (per

curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The elements of

a valid contract require: (1) an offer; (2) acceptance of the

offer; (3) consideration; and (4) sufficient specification of

the essential terms of the agreement.” Merlin Petroleum Co.,

Inc. v. Sarabia, No. 8:16-cv-1000-T-30TBM, 2016 WL 6947385,

at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2016).

“A claim for unjust enrichment has three elements: (1)

the plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2)

the defendant voluntarily accepted and retained that benefit;

and (3) the circumstances are such that it would be

inequitable for the defendants to retain it without paying

the value thereof.” Virgilio v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 680 F.3d

1329, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012).

“A cause of action for fraud in the inducement contains

four elements: (1) a false statement regarding a material

fact; (2) the statement maker’s knowledge that the

8  

representation is false; (3) intent that the representation

induces another’s reliance; and (4) consequent injury to the

party acting in reliance.” PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay

Beach Const., N.V., 598 F.3d 802, 808-09 (11th Cir. 2010)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

And, with respect to Count IV:

[c]onversion is an act of dominion wrongfully asserted over another’s property inconsistent with his ownership therein. . . . The tort may occur where a person wrongfully refuses to relinquish property to which another has the right of possession, and it may be established despite evidence that the defendant took or retained property based upon the mistaken belief that he had a right to possession, since malice is not an essential element of the action.

United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1270 (11th Cir.

2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

After having reviewed the Complaint’s well-pled

allegations, which by virtue of its default Luna is deemed to

admit, and the attachments thereto in the light of the

foregoing elements of the various causes of action, the Court

finds that Premier Gaming Trailers is entitled to the entry

of final default judgment. As established by Bekhor’s

affidavit, the bid identified as Solicitation Number W9124D-

16-T-0038 was for 157 units. (Doc. # 13-1 at ¶¶ 2, 6, 9).

Furthermore, Bekhor’s affidavit establishes that Premier

9  

Gaming Trailers “was entitled to $7,619.00 for each” unit.

(Id. at ¶ 9). Thus, Premier Gaming Trailers is entitled to an

award of $1,196,183 (calculated as $7,619 multiplied by 157).

Premier Gaming Trailers also seeks costs totaling $824.02 for

costs. (Doc. # 13 at 7).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

(1) Plaintiff Premier Gaming Trailers LLC’s Motion for Final

Default Judgment on Complaint (Doc. # 13) is GRANTED.

(2) The Clerk is directed to enter default judgment in favor

of Plaintiff Premier Gaming Trailers LLC and against

Defendant Luna Diversified Enterprises, Inc. in the

amount of $1,196,183 in damages plus $824.02 in costs,

which shall accrue post-judgment interest at the federal

statutory rate, for which sum let execution issue.

(3) Once judgment is entered, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE

this case.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

24th day of February, 2017.