TMCT PLLC v. Wright et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-81046-CIV-DAMIAN/Matthewman
TMCT, PLLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL ANDREW WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 56]
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Magistrate Judge William Matthewman’s
Report and Recommendation, entered on November 21, 2025 [ECF No. 82 (the “Report”)],
on Plaintiff TMCT PLLC’s (“Plaintiff”), Motion for Default Final Judgment Against the
Defendants, filed on September 22, 2025 [ECF No. 80 (the “Motion”)].
THE COURT has reviewed the Report, the Motion and the Exhibits attached
thereto, and the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised.
After 	carefully 	considering 	the 	Motion 	and 	its 	associated 	briefing, 	Judge
Matthewman issued the Report, recommending that the Motion be granted in part and
denied in part. The Report summarizes the relevant background and, therefore, the Court
will not set out the background in detail here.
In short, Plaintiff, an attorney practicing in Florida and in the United Kingdom,
initiated this lawsuit against the Defendants, Paul Andrew Wright (“Wright”), Eterna
Private Clients Europe DAC (“Eterna”), and Wright Private Office DAC (“WPO” and with
Wright and Eterna, “Defendants”), who are British Isles-based persons and businesses that
hired Plaintiff to 	provide certain legal services. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
Case 9:24-cv-81046-MD Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2025 Page 1 of 4

2
fraudulently induced Plaintiff to provide services but never paid and that the Defendants
abusively used corporate forms to frustrate Plaintiff’s efforts to collect unpaid balances. See
generally ECF No. 65 (“Amended Complaint”). After the Defendants failed to respond to
the Amended Complaint, the Clerk entered a default against them. See ECF No. 77. Now,
Plaintiff seeks entry of a default final judgment. See generally Mot.
Judge Matthewman determined that this Court has personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants, subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) and
1367(a), and that service of process was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(f)(1). Report at 6-8. As for Defendants’ liability, Judge Matthewman concluded that the
Amended Complaint contains sufficient factual allegations of fraud to withstand a motion
to dismiss as to all three Defendants. Id. at 8-9. He also concluded that the Amended
Complaint included sufficient allegations of alter ego and successor liability to establish that
the entity defendants, Eterna and WPO, should be jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for
the alleged fraud. Id. at 10-12.
In her Motion, Plaintiff sought $971,563.00, consisting of compensatory damages of
$221,305.00, costs of $2,083.00, punitive damages of $663,915.00, and attorney’s fees of
$84,260.00. See id. at 13. Per the Report, Plaintiff’s Affidavit [ECF No. 80-1] provides
documentary support in the form of unpaid invoices for the compensatory damages figure.
Id. As for the over half-million dollar claim of punitive damages, Judge Matthewman
thoroughly reviewed hundreds of pages worth of exhibits detailing Wright’s long-standing
fraudulent scheme to defraud his investors, his employees, and his contractors of tens of
millions of dollars while evading recourse by manipulating corporate forms. See id. at 13-18.
He concluded that the punitive damages figure requested by Plaintiff, which is treble the
Case 9:24-cv-81046-MD Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2025 Page 2 of 4

3
compensatory 	damage 	figure, 	is 	warranted 	under 	Florida 	law. 	Id. 	at 	15-18. 	Judge
Matthewman also reviewed Plaintiff’s bill of costs and concluded that the costs sought are
compensable litigation expenses under 20 U.S.C. § 1920. Id. at 20-21. However, as to the
$84,260.00 claim for attorney’s fees, Judge Matthewman concluded that neither statute nor
contract provided for a prevailing party fee award, and Plaintiff had not provided any legal
basis for a fee award otherwise. Id. at 18-20.
Neither party filed objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has expired.
See generally Docket.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts
must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely
objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of
review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de
novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to
require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de
novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).
The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the Motion and the Exhibits thereto, the
record, and the applicable law to assure herself that no clear error appears on the face of the
record. In light of that review, the undersigned agrees with the thorough analysis and well-
reasoned recommendations stated in Judge Matthewman’s Report and agrees with Judge
Matthewman’s conclusions. Accordingly, it is
Case 9:24-cv-81046-MD Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2025 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 82] is AFFIRMED
AND ADOPTED as follows:
1. 	The Motion [ECF No. 80] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
2. 	A Default Final Judgment will be entered separately.
3. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Defendants.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in the Southern District of Florida this 15th
day of December, 2025.
_________________________________
MELISSA DAMIAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	Magistrate Judge William Matthewman
Paul Andrew Wright
10 Leinster Wood South`
Carton House
Maynooth, Kildare W23 N9T7
Republic of Ireland
Defendant
Eterna Private Clients Europe DAC
Wright Private Office DAC
Pembroke Hall
Fitzwilliam Square West
Dublin 2, Dublin DO2 NX53
Republic of Ireland
Defendants
Counsel of Record
Case 9:24-cv-81046-MD Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2025 Page 4 of 4