Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Sinito et al.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
FIDELITY 	AND 	DEPOSIT 	COMPANY 	OF
MARYLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK SINITO, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:24-cv-209
JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22). Defendants
filed a timely brief in opposition, (ECF No. 23), and Plaintiff a timely reply in support, (ECF
No. 24). 	For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Before this case was initiated, Defendant American Preservation Builders, LLC (“APB”)
was an organization that engaged in the construction contracting business and sometimes needed
to obtain surety bonds as a condition of bidding on and/or entering into construction contracts.
(ECF No. 1, PageID #4, ¶ 12; ECF No. 17, PageID #98, ¶ 12; ECF No. 22-2, PageID #142, ¶ 2).
Plaintiff Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (“F&D”) is an organization authorized to
issue such surety bonds in Ohio and throughout the United States. (ECF No. 22-2, PageID #142,
¶ 2).
On April 14, 2016, Defendants APB, Millennia Housing Development, Ltd. (“MHD”), and
Millennia Housing Management, Ltd. (“MHM”), as well as Frank Sinito and Malisse Sinito (who
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 1 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

2
are members of APB, MHD, and MHM),1 executed a General Indemnity Agreement in favor of
F&D with respect to certain construction contracts (“Indemnity Agreement”). 	(ECF No. 1-1,
PageID #15–23; ECF No. 22-2, PageID #142, ¶ 2; ECF No. 23, PageID #213, ¶ 45). In relevant
part, Defendants agreed to indemnify F&D as follows:
Indemnitors shall exonerate, indemnify, and hold Surety harmless from any and all
liability and Loss, sustained or incurred, arising from or related to: (a) any Bond,
(b) any Claim, (c) any Indemnitor failing to timely and completely perform or
comply with this Agreement, (d) Surety enforcing this Agreement or (e) any act of
Surety to protect or procure any of Surety’s rights, protect or preserve any of
Surety’s interests, or to avoid, or lessen Surety’s liability or alleged liability. The
liability of Indemnitors to Surety under this Agreement includes all Claims made
on Surety, all payments made, Loss incurred, and all actions taken by Surety under
the Good Faith belief that Surety is, would be or was liable for the amounts paid or
the actions taken, or that it was necessary or expedient to make such payments or
take such actions, whether or not such liability, necessity or expediency existed.
(ECF No. 1-1, PageID #15, ¶ 2). In the same Indemnity Agreement, Defendants also agreed to
give F&D access to certain information:
Indemnitors shall promptly provide Surety with any and all information and
documentation concerning the business or financial situation of any Indemnitor or
any subsidiary, affiliate or Related Entity of any Indemnitor, as requested by Surety.
Indemnitors shall furnish on demand, and Surety shall have the right to access,
examine and copy the books, records and accounts of Indemnitors and of any entity
under the control of any Indemnitor, at no cost to Surety.
(Id. at PageID #16, ¶ 11).
Pursuant to the Indemnity Agreement, F&D executed Payment Bond No. 9243096 in the
amount of $19,812,489.00 (“Payment Bond”). 	(ECF No. 1-2, PageID #24–30). 	The Payment
Bond named: (i) APB as the Contractor; (ii) F&D as the Surety; and (iii) Hubbard Gardens IN TC,
LP (“Hubbard”) as the Owner. (Id. at PageID #24). The Payment Bond relates to a construction
contract dated October 12, 2017 (“Construction Contract”) between APB and Hubbard in the
1 Defendants may be referred to collectively as either “Defendants” or “Indemnitors” and may be referred to
individually as an “Indemnitor.”
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 2 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

3
initial amount of $19,812,489.00 for certain renovations on a project known as Hubbard Gardens
(the “Project”). (Id.; ECF No. 22-2, PageID #142–43, ¶ 4; ECF No. 23, PageID #213, ¶ 6).
In relation to the Construction Contract, several subcontractors of APB made claims
against the Payment Bond in excess of $783,859.67. (ECF No. 22-2, PageID #143, ¶ 6). Shepherd
Company, LLC d/b/a ShepCo Commercial Finishes (“ShepCo”) asserted a claim against F&D
under the Payment Bond in excess of $346,911.94 in Case No. 49D11-2206-PL-021394 in the
Superior Court for Marion County, Indiana (“ShepCo Payment Bond Claim”). 	(ECF No. 22-2,
PageID #143, ¶ 6; ECF No. 23, PageID #213, ¶ 7). P.I.P.E., Inc. (“PIPE”) also asserted a claim
against F&D under the Payment Bond in excess of $291,460.73 in that same case (“PIPE Payment
Bond Claim”). 	(ECF No. 22-2, PageID #143, ¶ 6; ECF No. 23, PageID #213, ¶ 7). 	Finally,
Howard Group, f/k/a Harding Group (“Howard”) asserted a claim against F&D under the Payment
Bond in excess of $145,487.00 in a separate case before the Superior Court for Marion County,
Indiana (“Howard Payment Bond Claim”). (ECF No. 22-2, PageID #143, ¶ 6; ECF No. 23, PageID
#213, ¶ 7).
In a March 31, 2023 letter, F&D notified Defendants of the ShepCo and PIPE Payment
Bond Claims and demanded that:
before the close of business on April 7, 2023— the Indemnitors (1) deposit cash or
other acceptable collateral with F&D in the amount of $688,372.67 pursuant to
Paragraph 4 of the Indemnity Agreement, and (2) confirm that the Indemnitors will
provide F&D and/or its agents access to the books, records and accounts of
Indemnitors and any entity under the control of any Indemnitor pursuant to
Paragraph 11 of the Indemnity Agreement - including all documents/information
relating to APB’s defenses to the Claims.
(ECF No. 22-2, PageID #158–59). After Defendants failed to deposit collateral or provide access
to their books, records, and accounts, F&D sent Defendants a June 16, 2023 letter stating:
[U]nless the Indemnitors fully fund the resolution of or directly resolve the Claims
in the interim, F&D will (1) negotiate, settle, and pay the Claims no later than July
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 3 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

4
7, 2023 and (2) seek indemnification/reimbursement from the Indemnitors for all
“Loss” F&D has incurred in relation to the Payment Bond and/or the Claims
including (a) F&D’s settlement payments to the Claimants and (b) F&D’s
investigative fees and expenses.
(Id. at PageID #171–72).
Defendants were able to subsequently resolve and satisfy the PIPE Payment Bond Claim
and the Howard Payment Bond Claim. (ECF No. 22-2, PageID #145, ¶ 9; ECF No. 23, PageID
#213, ¶ 10). By contrast, although Defendants were able to negotiate a settlement of the ShepCo
Payment Bond Claim for $360,000, they were unable to fund the settlement payment; PNC Bank
would not release allocated funds because of an ongoing dispute related to the Project. 	(ECF
No. 22-2, PageID #145, ¶ 9; ECF No. 23, PageID #214, ¶ 11). 	On September 28, 2023, F&D
exercised its right under the Indemnity Agreement to settle any “claims” against the Payment Bond
and settled the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim for $330,000.00, executing a Final Conditional
Release, Lien Waiver and Release of Bond Claim. (ECF No. 1-3; ECF No. 22-2, PageID #145,
¶ 9; ECF No. 23, PageID #214, ¶ 12).
Frank Sinito sent a January 9, 2024 letter to F&D informing it of PNC’s failure to release
the allocated funds and his belief that the funds would be released within the month. (ECF No. 23,
PageID #215–16). In a January 24, 2024 letter, F&D advised Defendants Frank and Malisse Sinito
that, despite the challenges facing Defendants, F&D was entitled to indemnity/reimbursement
from Defendants; it further stated F&D would file a complaint in federal court seeking judicial
enforcement 	of 	its 	rights 	under 	the 	Indemnity 	Agreement 	if 	it 	did 	not 	receive 	full
indemnity/reimbursement in the amount of $361,427 on or before January 31, 2024. 	(ECF
No. 22-2, PageID #189–206). 	To this date, Defendants have failed to indemnify F&D for the
“Loss” exceeding $368,153.00 related to F&D’s settlement of the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim.
(Id. at PageID #145–46, ¶¶ 10–11; see ECF No. 23, PageID #214, ¶ 13).
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 4 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

5
II. 	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2024, F&D filed a complaint against Defendants. 	(ECF No. 1). 	The
complaint generally alleges that Defendants materially breached the Indemnity Agreement by:
(i) failing to indemnify or reimburse F&D for the “Loss” incurred by its settlement of the ShepCo
Payment Bond Claim; and (ii) failing to provide F&D with requested information or granting F&D
access to the books, records, and accounts of Defendants or entities under control of any defendant.
(Id. at PageID #4–13). The complaint asserts two causes of action: (i) “Breach of the Indemnity
Agreement (Damages)” (Count I); and (ii) “Specific Performance of the Indemnity 	Agreement
(Books and Records)” (Count II). 	(Id. at PageID #11–13). 	For relief, the complaint requests
damages against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $361,427 and an order
compelling specific performance of the records access provision of the Indemnity Agreement. (Id.
at PageID #13–14). Defendants filed their answer on April 19, 2024. (ECF No. 17).
On May 2, 2025, F&D filed the instant motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 22). In
its memorandum of law in support, F&D argues that: (i) the Indemnity Agreement is clear,
unambiguous, and enforceable under Ohio law; (ii) there is no issue of material fact that Defendant
breached the Indemnity Agreement by failing to indemnify the “Loss” suffered by F&D; and
(iii) there is no issue of material fact that F&D is entitled to specific performance of Defendants’
duty to furnish access to the books, records, and accounts of Defendants or controlled entities.
(ECF No. 22-1, PageID #132–39). F&D requests that the Court issue summary judgment in its
favor and: “(1) enter a money judgment against the Indemnitors, jointly and severally, in the
amount of $368,153.00 with respect to Count I of F&D’s Complaint”; and “(2) enter a judgment
compelling the Indemnitors to specifically perform their joint and several obligation to furnish
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 5 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

6
F&D access to the books, records, accounts, etc. of the Indemnitors and any ‘Related Entity’ with
respect to Count II of F&D’s Complaint.” (Id. at PageID #139).
On June 2, 2025, Defendants filed their brief in opposition. (ECF No. 23). They argue
that they have not materially breached the Indemnity Agreement because Defendants intend to
indemnify F&D with regard to the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim as soon as “PNC” releases the
allocated funds—noting that PNC has refused to release said funds because of an unresolved
dispute. ( Id. at PageID #208–10). On June 16, 2025, F&D filed its reply in support of the motion
for summary judgment. (ECF No. 24).
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs motions for summary judgment. 	The Rule
states that the court shall grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute is genuine if it is “based on evidence upon which a reasonable jury could
return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party.” Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Schools,
469 F.3d 479, 487 (6th Cir. 2006). A fact is material if “its resolution might affect the outcome of
the suit under the governing substantive law.” Id. The moving party bears the burden of showing
that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
The court views the facts and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
Pittman v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 901 F.3d 619, 628 (6th Cir. 2018). 	Once the moving
party satisfies its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce evidence that
demonstrates that there is a genuine dispute of a material fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986); Zinn v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 866, 871 (N.D. Ohio 2012)
(citing Fulson v. City of Columbus, 801 F. Supp. 1, 4 (S.D. Ohio 1992)).
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 6 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

7
IV. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Count I – Damages for Breach of the Indemnity Agreement
F&D argues that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor on Count I because there
is no issue of material fact that Defendants materially breached the Indemnity Agreement by failing
to indemnify F&D for the $368,153.00 “Loss” it incurred by settling the ShepCo Payment Bond
Claim in good faith, as well as failing to deposit any collateral with respect to said loss. 	(ECF
No. 22-1, PageID #134–36). 	Defendants respond that they have not materially breached the
Indemnity Agreement because: (i) PNC refuses to release funds allocated to resolve and satisfy
the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim; (ii) F&D knew of this dispute and “prematurely” settled the
claim; and (iii) Defendants intend to resolve and satisfy the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim once
PNC releases the funds. (ECF No. 23, PageID #209–10).
The Court finds that there is no issue of material fact that Defendants materially breached
the Indemnity Agreement. The parties do not dispute, and the evidence establishes, that: (i) F&D
and Defendant executed the Indemnity Agreement,2 (ECF No. 1-1; ECF No. 22, PageID #142, ¶ 2;
ECF No. 23, PageID #213, ¶ 5); (ii) in accordance with the Indemnity Agreement, F&D executed
the Payment Bond for the Construction Contract, (ECF No. 1-2; ECF No. 22, PageID #142, ¶ 3;
ECF No. 23, PageID #213, ¶ 6); (iii) ShepCo asserted the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim against
the Payment Bond for an amount in excess of $346,911.94, (ECF No. 22, PageID #143, ¶ 6; ECF
No. 23, PageID #213, ¶ 7); (iv) F&D settled the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim for $330,000 in
September 2023, (ECF No. 1-3; ECF No. 22, PageID #145, ¶ 9; ECF No. 23, PageID #214, ¶ 12);
and (v) Defendants have not indemnified F&D for the loss it incurred in settling the ShepCo
Payment Bond Claim, (ECF No. 22, PageID #145, ¶ 10; ECF No. 23, PageID #214, ¶ 13). There
2 Defendants did not provide any arguments attacking the validity and enforceability of the Indemnity Agreement.
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 7 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

8
is also no dispute that, under the terms of the Indemnity Agreement, F&D’s settlement of the
ShepCo Payment Bond Claim constitutes a “Loss” for which Defendants are obligated to
indemnify F&D. (ECF No. 1-1, PageID #15, 19, ¶¶ 2, 30).
Defendants do not provide any specific legal argument as to why they have not materially
breached the Indemnity Agreement. Instead, they simply state that: (i) F&D “prematurely” settled
the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim; and (ii) Defendants intend to indemnify F&D once PNC
releases certain funds that PNC has refused to release due to a separate, ongoing dispute. (ECF
No. 23, PageID #210). Defendants do not explicitly argue that these two circumstances excuse
Defendants’ duty to indemnify F&D for the cost of settling the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim; nor
do they provide any legal authority to support such an argument.
To the extent that Defendants obliquely argue that F&D settled the ShepCo Payment Bond
Claim in bad faith, the Court finds that such an argument fails. The Indemnity Agreement grants
F&D the “absolute and unconditional” right to settle any “Claim” against Defendants; the ShepCo
Payment Bond Claim was asserted in a lawsuit in state court against F&D under the Payment
Bond, which meets the Indemnity Agreement’s definition of a “Claim.” (See ECF No. 1-1, PageID
#15, 18, ¶¶ 3, 30). 	Moreover, Defendants are obligated to indemnify Claims settled in “Good
Faith,” which is defined as, “with respect to any act, exercise of discretion or omission by [F&D],
an absence of dishonesty, evil intent and actual malice toward Principal and [Defendants].” (ECF
No. 1-1, PageID #15, 19, ¶¶ 2, 30). Defendants have provided no evidence, no caselaw, and no
explicit argument, that F&D’s settlement of the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim was not made in
“Good Faith” under the terms of the Indemnity Agreement. They have also provided no evidence
to dispute the assertions in Marcha Durcan’s sworn declaration that F&D determined that
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 8 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

9
settlement of the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim was necessary and expedient under the
circumstances. (ECF No. 22-2, PageID #144–45, ¶¶ 8–9).
Finally, to the extent Defendants intended to argue that there is no material breach of the
Indemnity Agreement because they intend to indemnify F&D once PNC releases the disputed
funds, this argument also fails. The Indemnity Agreements provides that:
Indemnitors shall promptly, upon demand, procure the full and complete discharge
of [F&D] from all Bonds and all liability in connection with such Bonds. 	If
Indemnitors are unable to obtain discharge of any or all such Bonds within the time
demanded, Indemnitors shall promptly deposit with [F&D] an amount of money
that [F&D] determines is sufficient to collateralize or pay any outstanding bonded
obligations.
(ECF No. 1-1, PageID #15, ¶ 2) (emphasis added). Evidence demonstrates that F&D has made
several demands to Defendants to either indemnify the loss associated with the ShepCo Payment
Bond Claim or deposit acceptable collateral—specifically in March 2023, June 2023, and January
2024. (ECF No. 22-2, PageID #144–45, ¶¶ 7, 10; id. at PageID #158–59, 171–73, 189–91). It is
now November 2025, and Defendants concede that they have neither indemnified F&D nor
deposited collateral with relation to the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim. There is no material issue
of fact that Defendants breached the Indemnity Agreement by failing to promptly discharge the
ShepCo Payment Bond Claim or deposit sufficient collateral after F&D made several demands
under the terms of the agreement. There is no provision in the Indemnity Agreement conditioning
Defendants’ obligation to reimburse or provide collateral on the release of funds by a third party.
Defendants had a duty to comply with the Indemnity Agreement or risk breach. The fact that PNC
will not release specific funds allocated for the payment of the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim is
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 9 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

10
irrelevant to whether Defendants are liable for breaching the Indemnity Agreement.3 Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS summary judgment in F&D’s favor as to Count I.
B. 	Count II – Specific Performance/Access to Defendants’ Books and Records
F&D argues that it is entitled to specific performance of Defendants’ duty under the
Indemnity Agreement to furnish access to books, records, and accounts of Defendants and any
related entity because there is no adequate remedy at law (e.g., damages) with relation to F&D’s
lack of access. 	(ECF No. 22-1, PageID #136–39). 	F&D argues that “[c]ourts in Ohio and
throughout the United States have recognized that sureties such as F&D lack an adequate remedy
at law in relation to the breach of the books and records provision of an indemnity agreement[,]”
citing a list of cases both inside and outside the Sixth Circuit. 	(Id. at PageID #137–38 & n.3).
F&D notes that paragraph 11 of the Indemnity Agreement clearly and ambiguously confers a right
to free access to F&D, and paragraph 16 confirms that F&D has no adequate remedy at law and is
entitled to specific performance of the right to free access. (Id. at PageID #138–39 (citing ECF
No. 1-1, at PageID #16–17)). 	Defendants’ response does not provide any opposition to these
arguments raised by F&D; nor does it otherwise address the issue of specific performance for this
claim. (See ECF No. 23).
Because Defendants failed to respond to or oppose F&D’s arguments on this issue,
Defendants have waived any opposition or argument against granting summary judgment in
F&D’s favor on Count II. See Humphrey v. United States Att’y Gen.’s Office, 279 F. App’x 328,
331 (6th Cir. 2008); A.B. Pratt & Co. v. Bridgeport Grp., LLC, No. 1:22-cv-1579, 2023 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 62708, at *73 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 10, 2023) (collecting cases); see also Vanderbilt Univ. v.
3 To the extent that Defendants contend PNC has wrongly withheld the funds or PNC is in part liable for the breach
of the Indemnity Agreement, they should have sought to implead PNC in this action under Rule 14(a) or pursued their
own claims against PNC in a separate action.
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 10 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

11
NLRB, 759 F. Supp. 3d 812, 850 n.16 (M.D. Tenn. 2024) (“Given Defendants’ failure to fulsomely
address this point, whatever their rationale may be, the Court finds Defendants waived any such
opposition for the purposes of resolving the motion here.” (internal citations omitted)); Lewis-
Smith v. W. Ky. Univ., 85 F. Supp. 3d 885, 915 (W.D. Ky. 2015) (“When a party fails to respond
to a motion or argument therein, the Sixth Circuit has held that the lack of response is grounds for
the district court to assume opposition to the motion is waived and grant the motion.”). That said,
F&D is also entitled to summary judgment on the merits.
The Indemnity Agreement explicitly grants F&D the right to access, examine and copy
the books, records, and accounts of Defendants or any entity under the control of Defendants.
(ECF No. 1-1, PageID #16, ¶ 11). Under the agreement, Defendants also: (i) acknowledge that its
failure to comply with the right to access provision will cause irreparable harm to F&D for which
it has no adequate remedy at law; and (ii) agree that F&D shall be entitled to specific performance
in such a circumstance. (See id. at PageID #17, ¶ 16). Under Ohio law, specific performance is
an equitable remedy that is available only when there is no adequate remedy at law. Trans Union
Credit Info. Co. v. Associated Credit Servs., Inc., 805 F.2d 188, 192 (6th Cir. 1986) (citing State
ex rel. Curd v. Backhaus, 56 Ohio App. 2d 79, 82, 381 N.E.2d 646, 648–49, 10 Ohio Op. 3d 101
(1977)); Yellow Brick Rd. Auctions, LLC v. Dixon, 2025-Ohio-1934, ¶ 19 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025);
Widok v. Est. of Wolf, 2020-Ohio-5178, ¶¶ 81–82 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
As F&D asserts, courts have routinely granted summary judgment and ordered specific
performance in order to enforce similar provisions in indemnity agreements that provide a surety
with the right to access an indemnitor’s books and records. See, e.g., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577. 584 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that a plaintiff was entitled to specific
performance of a contractual provision granting it the right to inspect the defendants’ financial
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 11 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

12
records after concluding there was no adequate remedy through an award of monetary damages);
Old Republic Sur. Co. v. T&A Constr., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-194, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193069, at
*10–12 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 2024) (ordering specific performance of an indemnity agreement’s
provision granting the plaintiff access to the defendant’s financial records); Int’l Fid. Ins. Co. v.
Vimas Painting Co. Inc., No. 2:07-cv-298, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63289, *25–26 (S.D. Ohio July
23, 2009) (same); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. DJR, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-332, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
120321, at *11–12 (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2023); Colonial Sur. Co. v. A&R Cap. Assocs., 420 F.
Supp. 3d 38, 48 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (collecting cases in which federal courts granted specific
performance requests by sureties seeking access to indemnitors’ financial information, books, and
records). 	The Court adopts the reasoning of these cases and finds that F&D has no adequate
remedy at law with respect to Defendants’ breach of the right to access provision of the Indemnity
Agreement. Thus, specific performance is an appropriate remedy in this case.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in F&D’s favor as to Count II and
ORDERS Defendants and any “entity under control” of Defendants to provide F&D with access
to their books, records, and accounts in accordance with the Indemnity Agreement.
V. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, F&D’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is
GRANTED. 	The Court enters judgment as a matter of law in favor of F&D and against
Defendants on Counts I and II of the complaint. The Court enters a money judgment in favor of
F&D and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $368,153.00.4 Defendants
4 In her sworn declaration, Marcha Durcan attests that F&D has sustained a loss in the amount $368,153.00 in relation
to having settled the ShepCo Payment Bond Claim. (ECF No. 22-2, PageID #145–46, ¶ 11). Defendants did not
dispute this amount.
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 12 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>

13
are ORDERED to furnish F&D with access to the books, records, and accounts of Defendants and
any entity under the control of any Defendant, in accordance with the Indemnity Agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 13, 2025
____________________________________
CHARLES E. FLEMING
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Case: 1:24-cv-00209-CEF Doc #: 25 Filed: 11/13/25 13 of 13. PageID #: <pageID>