1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22841-RNS

PALM SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD., a 

Florida limited partnership; and PHILIPS LAKE 

WORTH, LLC, a Florida limited liability 

company,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

T-MOBILE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

VIDAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC. 

a Florida corporation, WIRELESS 

CONNECTIONS GROUP, INC., a Florida 

corporation, WC STORE 19 LLC, a Florida 

limited liability company, WC STORE 21 LLC, a 

Florida limited liability company, DAVID 

BRAGG, individually, and ERIC DIAZ, 

individually,

 Defendants.

_________________________________________

Vidal Communication Services, Inc. 

Cross-Claimant

VS. 

WIRELESS CONNECTIONS GROUP, INC., a 

Florida Corporation, and ERIC DIAZ, individually,

 Cross-Defendants.

_________________________________________/

CROSS-CLAIMANTS’, VIDAL COMMUNICTION SERVICES, INC., MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAISNT CROSS-DEFENDANTS

Case 1:20-cv-22841-RNS Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 1 of 5
2

Cross-Claimants, VIDAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES INC., (“Vidal”), through its 

undersigned counsel, hereby moves for entry of Default Judgement pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 55(b) against Cross-Defendants, WIRELESS CONNECTIONS GROUP, INC,

(“Wireless”) and ERIC DIAZ (“Diaz”) (herein Wireless and Eric collectively referred to as 

“Defendants”). 

I. Background

1. This is a civil action sounding in contractual indemnity as alleged in the one-count

Amended Cross-Claim filed on September 11, 2020 (DE. 41). 

2. On October 21, 2020, Defendants submitted a Motion to Dismiss Amended Cross-Claim

(DE. 55). 

3. On January 5, 2021, this Honorable Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss Amended Cross Claim in which this Court denied the Motion to Dismiss against 

Wireless and Diaz (DE. 66). 

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(a), Defendants were obligated to file 

an Answer to the Amended Cross-Claim by January 19, 2021.

5. On January 27, 2021, Vidal’s Counsel reached out to Defendant’s Counsel to remind him 

that the Answer was due. Defendant’s counsel requested an extension of time to February 16, 2021 

to file Defendant’s Answer and Vidal’s Counsel agreed.

6. Despite communicating with Defendant’s Counsel, agreeing to an extension to file a 

Responsive Pleading to the Amended Cross-Claim by February 16, 20201, Defendant’s have not 

filed an Answer to the Amended Cross-Claim. 

7. Under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), the court may enter a judgment by default. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). “When a defendant has failed to plead or defend, a district court may 

enter judgment by default.” Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 

2015). “Entry of default judgment is only warranted when there is ‘a sufficient basis in the 

pleadings for the judgment entered.’” Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1245 

(11th Cir. 2015) (citing Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th 

Cir. 1975).

8. The court must determine whether there is sufficient basis in the pleading for the default

judgment to be entered since the Defendant is not held to admit the facts that are not well plead in

Case 1:20-cv-22841-RNS Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 2 of 5
3

the Complaint. Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 

1975). See also Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987) ("[L]iability is wellpled in the complaint, and is therefore established by the entry of default . . . .").

9. On or aboutJune 1, 2016, Cross-Claimant entered into two separate Operation and Transfer

Agreements and Indemnification Agreements with the Defendants (DE. 41 at 6 and 7). 

10. Pursuant to the said Operations and Transfer Agreement and Indemnification Agreements, 

Defendants have agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the Cross-Claimants from and against any 

and all claims, demands, rental payments, accrued rent, late fees, penalties, fines, liabilities, taxes, 

damages, costs, and expenses of whatever kind or nature know or unknown, contingent or 

otherwise, arising directly or indirectly, out of or in any way related to the operation of the Sprint 

Stores in connection with the Hialeah Lease and the Lake Worth Lease (DE. 41 at 18).

11. In this case, the Defendants have to failed to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint 

within the time frame provided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(a), and after the 

courtesy extension provided by the undersigned.

12. There is sufficient basis in the pleadings for entry of Default Judgement in favor of the 

Cross-Claimants. In Am. Contrs. Indem. Co. v. Pierson, Inc., the court held that the Defendants 

breached and defaulted in their Indemnity Agreement for failure to indemnify the Plaintiff from 

any and all liability for the losses and expenses that Plaintiff incurred relating to the claims. Am.

Contractors Indem. Co. v. Pierson, Inc., No. 19-CIV-60247-RAR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142970, 

at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2019). 

13. Similarly, in this case, the Cross-Claimant and the Defendants have entered into an

indemnity agreement where the Defendants are to indemnify the Cross-Claimant for any claims 

arising out of the Leases. 

14. Moreover, just as Am. Contrs. Indem. Co. v. Pierson, Inc, the Defendants have failed to 

indemnify the Cross-Claimants on the claims brought against them by the Plaintiff, PALM 

SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD and PHILIPS LAKE WORTH, LLC.

15. As such, Defendants have breached their Agreement by failing to refuse to indemnify the 

Cross-Claimant and have failed to file a Response to the Amended Cross-Claim. 

WHEREOF, Vidal respectfully moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) for Entry 

of Default Judgment, against Defendants, for failure to serve any papers on the undersigned as 

required by law regarding Vidal’s Amended Cross-Claim. 

Case 1:20-cv-22841-RNS Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 3 of 5
4

Dated this 19th day of February, 2021. 

Respectfully submitted,

Quesada Valdes, PLLC

Attorney for Defendant –

Vidal Communication Services Inc.

1313 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 200

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Tel: (305) 446-2517 

Email: jcv@qvlaw.net

By: s/ Juan C. Valdes 

 Juan C. Valdes, Esq.

 Fla. Bar No: 787191

Case 1:20-cv-22841-RNS Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 4 of 5
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 19th, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I additionally certify that the foregoing 

document was sent via U.S. Mail to all counsel of record either via transmission of Notices of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or 

parties who are not authorized to receive electronically notices of electronic filing. 

By: s/ Juan C. Valdes 

SERVICE LIST

Kevin C. Kaplan, Esq. (933848)

kkaplan@coffeyburlington.com

ahall@coffeyburlington.com

lperez@coffeyburlington.com

service@coffeyburlington.com

Coffey Burlington, P.L.

2601 South Bayshore Dr.,

Penthouse One

Miami, FL 33133

Tel: (305) 858-2900

Fax: (305) 858-5261

Attorney for Plaintiff

Adolfo E. Jimenez, Esq. (869295)

Rebecca M. Plasencia, Esq. (861901)

adolfo.jimenez@hklaw.com

rebecca.plasencia@hklaw.com

Holland & Knight LLP

701 Brickell Ave, Suite 3300

Miami, FL 33131

Tel: (305) 374-8500

Fax: (305) 789-7799

Attorney for Defendant, 

T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Bryce Gilbert, Esq. (043981)

bgilbert@theconstructionlawyers.com

Gilbert Law Group, P.A.

1720 Harrison Street

19th Floor-Penthouse B

Hollywood, FL 33020

Tel: (954) 620-5000

Fax: (954) 620-5105

Attorney for Defendants, 

Wireless Connections Group Inc, 

WC Store 19, LLC, WC Store 21, LLC, 

David Bragg, and Eric Diaz

Juan C. Valdes (787191)

jcv@qvlaw.net

xm@qvlaw.net

Quesada Valdes, PLLC

1313 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 200

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Tel: 305-446-2517

Fax: 305-446-7521

Attorney for Defendant, 

Vidal Communication Services, Inc.

Case 1:20-cv-22841-RNS Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 5 of 5