American University of the Caribbean v. Tien ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NOS. 21-cv-21928-WPD 21-cv-23112-WPD 21-cv-23698-WPD AMERICAN ASSOCIATED GROUP, LTD. f/k/a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF THE CARIBBEAN, Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Becerra vs. HENRY TIEN and MING TIEN, Defendants. ______________________________/ OMNIBUS ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the three Complaints to Renew Judgment filed by American University of the Caribbean1 (“Plaintiff”) against Henry Tien and Ming Tien (collectively “Defendants”), all relating to the enforcement of judgments entered by this Court against Defendants in Case Number 04-cv-20834. Plaintiff filed a Complaint to Renew Judgment against Defendants Henry Tien and Ming Tien as to the Attorneys’ Fees Judgment, seeking judgment against Henry Tien and Ming Tien in the amount of $186,863.10, plus accrued interest from May 25, 2016 through the date judgment is entered, plus post-judgment interest. See case no. 21-cv-21928-WPD. Plaintiff has also filed 1 American University of the Caribbean has changed its name to American Associated Group, Ltd. See American Associated Group, LTD. v. Tien, No. 1:21-cv-23112-WPD, at 1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2021), ECF No. [1]. Accordingly, one of the complaints to renew judgment lists American Associated Group, Ltd. as plaintiff, as opposed to American University of the Caribbean. See id. two Complaints to Renew Judgment as to the Damages Judgment, seeking judgment against Henry Tien and Ming Tien in the amount of $3,798.814.70, plus accrued through the date judgment is entered, plus post-judgment interest. See case nos. 21-cv-23112-WPD; 21-cv-23698- WPD. The three cases were referred to the Magistrate Judge Becerra for consideration of whether the cases should be consolidated and for all pre-trial matters. On April 6, 2022, Magistrate Judge Becerra entered an Omnibus Report and Recommendation, recommending that the three actions (1:21-cv-21928-WPD, 1:21-cv-23112- WPD, and 1:21-cv-23698-WPD) be consolidated, that the pending motions be adjudicated as set forth in the Omnibus Report and Recommendation, and that judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants as to the Attorneys’ Fees Judgment and the Damages Judgment. The Court has carefully considered these filings, the entire docket, Defendants’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation [DE 37], Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Objections [DE 38], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Defendants’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. [DE 37]. Having carefully considered Defendants’ Objections, the Court overrules the Objections. The Court agrees with the arguments set forth in the Plaintiff’s Response to the Defendant’s Objections [DE 38]. First, Defendants’ arguments regarding the Court’s Order to Show Cause were rejected by the Eleventh Circuit in OMS Collections, Ltd. v. Tien, 634 F. App'x 750, 757 (11th Cir. 2015), which affirmed the renewal of a different judgment entered in the same underlying case. Second, the Court rejects Henry Tien’s arguments regarding his declaratory judgment counterclaim in this action. As explained in the Report, the Counterclaim fails to state a claim for declaratory relief. There is no controversy to resolve by way of a declaratory judgment because Defendant Henry Tien has admitted all the requirements for the renewal of the judgment, namely that there is a valid judgment that remains outstanding. Finally, the Objections undertake a confusing account of the alleged historical genesis of this action and other actions, going back nearly twenty years, without connecting this description to the pending Complaints to Renew Judgment or to the Report and Recommendation in any meaningful way. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Omnibus Report and Recommendation [DE 36] in case no. 21-cv-21928- WPD; [DE 19] in case no. 21-cv-23112-WPD, and [DE 11] in case no. 21-cv- 23698-WPD is hereby APPROVED; 2. Defendant’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation [DE 37] are OVERRULED; 3. Case nos. 21-cv-21928-WPD, 21-cv-23112-WPD, and 21-cv-23698-WPD are hereby CONSOLIDATED; 4. All pleadings and papers shall be filed in Case No. 21-cv-21928-WPD and shall henceforth bear the caption set forth by the Court on page 1 of this Order. 5. Case Nos. 21-cv-23112-WPD and 21-cv-23698-WPD hereby ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Any documents filed in Case Nos. 21-cv- 23112-WPD and 21-cv-23698-WPD in the future shall be automatically stricken; 6. The Clerk shall place a copy of this Order in Case nos. 21-cv-21928-WPD, 21-cv- 23112-WPD, and 21-cv-23698-WPD, thereby indicating that the cases have been consolidated. 7. In case no. 21-cv-21928 (the Complaint to Renew the Attorney’s Fees Judgment), the pending motions are adjudicated as follows: Defendant Henry Tien’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint [DE 10] is DENIED; Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Henry Tien’s Counterclaim [DE 18] is GRANTED; Defendant Henry Tien’s Counterclaim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Henry Tien’s Affirmative Defense [DE 19] is GRANTED; Henry Tien’s Affirmative Defense is STRICKEN; and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Ming Tien [DE 30] is GRANTED; 8. In case no. 21-cv-23112 and 21-cv-23698 (the Complaints to Renew the Damages Judgment), the pending motions are adjudicated as follows: Defendant Henry Tien’s Motions to Quash Service ([DE 7] in 21-23112 and [DE 5] in 21-cv- 23698) are DENIED; Defendant Henry Tien’s Motions for More Definite Statement ([DE 16] in 21-23112 and [DE 9] in 21-cv-23698) are DENIED; 9. Any pending motions in case nos. 21-cv-21928-WPD, 21-cv-23112-WPD, and 21-cv-23698-WPD not otherwise disposed of in the rulings above are DENIED AS MOOT; 10. Judgment shall be entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants as to the Attorneys’ Fees Judgment in the amount of $186,863.10 plus interest and the Damages Judgment in the amount of $3,798,814.70 plus interest; 11. On or before May 18, 2022, Plaintiff shall file a proposed renewed judgment with a table indicating the amount of each judgment, the interest rate for each judgment, and the accrued interest for each judgment. 12. The Clerk is directed to MAIL a copy of this Order to Defendants at the addresses below. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 11th day of May, 2022. j a (i “a : “t jf f ? f yf □□ #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af CA MAGIA AYN GC VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies to: All counsel and parties of record Henry Tien 5660 SW 58 Place Miami, FL 33143 Ming Tien 30 Leucandra Drive Coral Gables, FL 33156