Opinions and documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
MARPLE FLEET LEASING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 6:25-cv-02087-RBD-LHP
ORLANDO RENTCO, LLC, AND
REMON AZIZ,
Defendants,
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Final Default Judgment,
Doc. No. 36, which motion has been referred to the undersigned. On review, the
renewed motion (Doc. No. 36) will once again be DENIED without prejudice, for
the reasons that follow.
This case concerns Plaintiff Marple Fleet Leasing, LLC’s claims that
Defendant Orlando Rentco, LLC breached a Master Lease Agreement with Plaintiff,
by which Orlando Rentco, LLC agreed to lease vehicles from Plaintiff, and by which
Plaintiff alleges that Orlando Rento, LLC failed to make required monthly
payments. Doc. No. 7; see also Doc. No. 7-1. Defendant Remon Aziz executed an
associated Guarantee, guaranteeing all amounts due under the Master Lease
Agreement. Doc. No. 7; see Doc. No. 7-1, at 11. The operative pleading is Plaintiff’s
amended complaint, filed on November 19, 2025. Doc. No. 7. Plaintiff brings two
breach of contract claims, one against each Defendant. Id. at 5–6.
Defendants were served with process, but they failed to timely appear or
respond. Doc. Nos. 13, 16; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, on Plaintiff’s
motions, Clerk’s defaults were entered against Defendants. Doc. Nos. 17–19, 26–28.
Thereafter, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. Doc. No. 31. On referral, the
undersigned denied that motion without prejudice for several reasons, to include:
(1) failure to comply with Local Rules 1.08 and 3.01(k); (2) failure to address subject
matter jurisdiction or whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants;
(3) failure to address or establish what jurisdiction’s law applied to the breach of
contract claims; (4) failure to adequately support the damages sought, to include a
request for prejudgment interest; and (5) failure to address compliance with the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Doc. No. 35. The undersigned permitted Plaintiff
to file a renewed motion addressing these issues. Id.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion. Doc. No. 36. While
Plaintiff has rectified some of the previously identified deficiencies, a few issues
remain, preventing the undersigned from recommending disposition of the
motion.1
1 In denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s initial motion, the undersigned cautioned
that “[f]ailure to adequately establish liability in a renewed motion, or failure to adequately
support the damages sought by citation to evidence and legal authority, will result in a
First, the motion once again fails to comply with the typography
requirements of Local Rule 1.08. See Doc. No. 36; see also Doc. No. 35, at 2.
Second, while Plaintiff has demonstrated why Pennsylvania law would
apply to its breach of contract claim against Orlando Rentco, LLC pursuant to the
terms of the Master Lease Agreement, see Doc. No. 36, at 3–4; Doc. No. 7-1 ¶ 20,
Plaintiff has not established same with regard to the Guarantee it seeks to enforce
against Aziz Remon, see Doc. No. 7-1, at 11. Specifically, it is not clear from the
attachments to the complaint whether the Guarantee is part of the Master Lease
Agreement, or whether it was executed separately—the undersigned notes that the
Master Lease Agreement is dated November 26, 2019, Doc. No. 7-1, at 9, and the
Guarantee was executed over three (3) years later, on December 12, 2022, Doc. No.
7-1, at 11. Unlike the Master Lease Agreement, the Guarantee does not contain a
choice-of-law provision, Doc. No. 7-1, at 11. Nor do the complaints, attachments
thereto, or Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment speak to where the Guarantee
was executed. Doc. Nos. 7, 36. Thus, Plaintiff has not adequately established what
law applies to its contract claim against Aziz Remon. Relatedly, Plaintiff’s filings
recommendation to the presiding District Judge that the motion be denied.” Doc. No. 35,
at 6. However, given that Plaintiff has rectified some of the previous deficiencies, the
undersigned finds it appropriate to allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to file a properly
supported motion for default judgment.
do not demonstrate why any prejudgment interest awarded against Aziz Remon
would be governed by Pennsylvania law. See Doc. No. 36, at 7–8.
Third, Plaintiff has again failed to adequately support the damages sought.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint includes allegations that $1,295,431.17 is the amount
it is owed. Doc. No. 7, at 5.2 In the motion, Plaintiff states: “Attached to this Motion
as Exhibit ‘1’ is the Affidavit of Frederick J. Cardone, Plaintiff’s chief financial
officer, who attests that [Orlando Rentco, LLC and/or Remon Aziz have not] paid
the $1,295,431.17 to Plaintiff.” Doc. No. 36, at 5, 6. But upon review of Mr.
Cardone’s affidavit, it is entirely conclusory, stating only: “Plaintiff has suffered
liquidated damages under the terms of the Master Lease Agreement totaling in the
amount of $1,295,431.17. See account summary attached hereto as Exhibit ‘1’ and
contract history attached hereto as Exhibit ‘2.’” Doc. No. 36-1 ¶ 6. No “account
summary” or “contract history” is attached to the filing. And the otherwise
conclusory references to $1,295,431.17 are alone insufficient to demonstrate that
default judgment is warranted in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount sought. See Almeira
v. GB House, LLC, No. 8:14-cv-00045-T-27AEP, 2014 WL 1366808, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
2 The operative complaint contains one reference to “$5,634,948.48” as the “full
outstanding balance.” Doc. No. 7 ¶ 26. However, the remainder of the complaint
references a request for “$1,295,431.17,” Doc. No. 7, at 5, the same amount Plaintiff requests
by its motion for default judgment, Doc. No. 36. Accordingly, the “$5,634,948.48” is not
further addressed herein.
Apr. 7, 2014) (“Conclusory affidavits are insufficient to establish the amount of
damages upon default judgment.”); Natures Way Marine, LLC v. N. Am. Materials,
Inc., No. CIV. A. 08-0005-WS-B, 2008 WL 801702, at *4 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 24, 2008) (“The
Court will not rubber stamp damages figures whose origins, meaning, and
constituent parts are indeterminate and unexplained. It is incumbent on plaintiff,
as the party seeking default judgment, to make a detailed evidentiary showing of
damages, beyond mere conclusory statements. . . .”).
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Final Default Judgment
(Doc. No. 36) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff will be given one final
opportunity to file a properly supported motion for default judgment. Plaintiff
shall file a renewed motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.
In a renewed motion Plaintiff must address, by citation to legal authority and
adequate evidence in support, the issues set forth in this Order as well as the June
18, 2026 Order (Doc. No. 35). A renewed motion shall be supported by a
memorandum of legal authority setting forth the applicable law for each claim and
demonstrating how the well pleaded allegations of the amended complaint
establish each of the elements of the claims for which Plaintiff seeks default
judgment. In making this showing, Plaintiff must provide pinpoint citations to the
portions of the amended complaint (by paragraph number) that establish each of
those elements. A renewed motion must also address, by citation to the amended
complaint, attachments, legal authority, and evidence the claimed damages.
Plaintiff must attach any evidence to a renewed motion that it wishes the
Court to consider — the renewed motion must be a stand-alone document and may
not incorporate by reference a prior motion. See Local Rule 3.01(h). Failure to
adequately establish liability in a renewed motion, or failure to adequately support
the damages sought by citation to evidence and legal authority, will result in a
recommendation to the presiding District Judge that the motion be denied, in whole
or in part.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 24, 2026.
LESLIE 3 AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
-6-
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.