United States of America for the use of Terry Bedford Concerete Construction, Inc. v. Argonaut Insurance Company ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE Case No. 1:23-cv-00130-JLT-CDB USE OF TERRY BEDFORD CONCRETE 12 CONSTRUCTION, INC., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING CROSS CLAIMANT ARGONAUT INSURANCE 14 v. COMPANY’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST RMA GEOSCIENCE, INC. 15 ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, (Docs. 22, 55) 16 Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 17 RECOMMENDATIONS ON STIPULATION DISCHARGING AND DISMISSING CROSS 18 CLAIMANT ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY 19 (Docs. 42, 55) 20 21 ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, 22 Cross Claimant, 23 v. 24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE 25 USE OF TERRY BEDFORD CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC, et al. 26 Cross Defendants. 27 28 1 Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant the United States of America for the use of Terry Bedford Concrete 2 Construction, Inc. (“Terry Bedford”) seeks to recover from Argonaut Insurance Company 3 (“Argonaut”) pursuant to a Miller Act Payment Bond. (Doc. 1); 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131-3134. Argonaut 4 filed a cross claim in interpleader against Terry Bedford, Marina Landscape, Inc., Armadillo Concrete 5 Resurfacing, RMA GeoScience, Inc. (“RMA”), Marz Remodeling, and 7J Construction (collectively 6 “Cross Defendants”). (Doc. 7-1.) Pursuant to Court order, Argonaut deposited $221,438.98 in 7 interpleader funds into the Court registry. (Docs. 19, 39.) On May 10, 2023, the Clerk of Court 8 entered default against RMA. (Docs. 18, 21.) Argonaut then moved for default judgment against 9 RMA. (Doc. 22.) On October 9, 2023, Argonaut filed a stipulation for discharge and dismissal signed 10 by all appearing parties. (Doc. 42.) 11 On November 20, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations 12 (1) to grant Argonaut’s motion for default judgment as to RMA and, on the appearing parties’ 13 stipulation, (2) to discharge and dismiss Argonaut. (Doc. 50.) On January 18, 2024, the Court issued 14 amended Findings and Recommendations to clarify the basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 15 (Doc. 55.) The amended Findings and Recommendations advised the parties that they must file any 16 objections within 14 days and that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 17 the waiver of fights on appeal.” (Doc. 55 at 13) (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 18 Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). No party filed objections or any 19 other response and the deadline to do so has passed. 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 21 review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the amended 22 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court 23 ORDERS: 24 1. The January 18, 2024, amended Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 55) are 25 ADOPTED IN FULL. 26 2. Argonaut’s motion for default judgment as to Cross Defendant RMA (Doc. 22) is 27 GRANTED. 28 3. Cross Defendant RMA shall take $0.00 for its Miller Act Payment Bond claim and 1 RMA forfeits said claim by way of default. 2 4. Argonaut’s stipulated request for discharge and dismissal of Argonaut (Doc. 42-1) is 3 GRANTED. 4 5. Argonaut is exonerated and dismissed from this action, in its entirety, with prejudice, 5 and all parties to the stipulation, and others with potential claims that have not yet bee! 6 made, be forever barred, and restrained from instituting any other action against 7 Argonaut in any court, against or in any way related to the Miller Act Payment Bond. 8 6. Argonaut is awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in bringing its action 9 in interpleader in the amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000), which amount shall 10 be paid by the Clerk of the Court from the amount currently on deposit. 11 7. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to issue an order/judgment pertaining to the 12 distribution of the interpleaded funds in the event of a settlement of the interpleader 13 cause of action by the adverse claimants to the interpleaded funds. 14 15 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 9, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28