Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00757/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00757-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DEVELOPERS SURETY AND )

INDEMNITY COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:09cv757-MHT

) (WO)

OLD TOWNE STATION, LLC, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION

This case is now before the court on the motion for

summary judgment submitted by plaintiff Developers Surety

and Indemnity Company. Rule 56(c)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment

“should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and

disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law.” 

Case 2:09-cv-00757-MHT-CSC Document 46 Filed 06/11/10 Page 1 of 4
2

Defaults (but not default judgments) have already

been entered against defendants Sandbox Properties, LLC

and Old Towne Station, LLC, and the court has granted

Developers Surety’s motion to dismiss defendants Lauren

Carroll and Alison Green. Thus, the motion for summary

judgment is brought only against remaining defendants,

Irma and Scott Brandt. The Brandts do not dispute the

evidence that is now before the court, as follows.

Developers Surety executed a subdivision completion

bond, with defendant Old Towne as principal, in

connection with the development of the “Old Towne Station

project,” to be built in the City of Auburn, Alabama.

Developers Surety acted as a surety on the bond only

after entering into a general indemnity agreement, signed

by each of the Brandts and notarized. The agreement

stated that Developers Surety would be compensated and

held harmless for all losses to the city, the obligee on

the bond, incurred in the completion of the project. 

Case 2:09-cv-00757-MHT-CSC Document 46 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 4
3

Thereafter, Old Towne failed to perform on its

obligations in the construction of the project, and the

city then brought claims against Developers Surety as the

guarantor. The Brandts have failed to indemnify

Developers Surety for its losses. Developers Surety now

seeks an award of $ 184,150.60 in damages against the

Brandts, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.

In support of its motion for summary judgment,

Developers Surety offers copies of the checks, totaling

$ 184,150.06, it has paid in satisfaction of the city’s

claims as well as affidavits from a recovery analyst

employed with Developers Surety, validating the losses

suffered by the company over the course of the project.

As this is the only evidence before the court and

after an independent review of the record, the court

finds that the requirements of Rule 56(c)(2) have been

met and that summary judgment should be entered in favor

of Developers Surety and against the Brandts for

$ 184,150.60, along with attorneys’ fees, costs, and

Case 2:09-cv-00757-MHT-CSC Document 46 Filed 06/11/10 Page 3 of 4
expenses. An appropriate judgment will be entered

against the Brandts. However, because only defaults,

and not default judgments, have been entered against

Sandbox Properties and Old Towne, this case still remains

pending as to Sandbox Properties and Old Towne.

DONE, this the 11th day of June, 2010.

 

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:09-cv-00757-MHT-CSC Document 46 Filed 06/11/10 Page 4 of 4