Florida Beauty Flora, Inc. v. Evergreen Fresh Farms, Inc., et al, No. 1:2017cv24173 - Document 19 (S.D. Fla. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 2/8/2018. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Florida Beauty Flora, Inc. v. Evergreen Fresh Farms, Inc., et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SO U TH ER N D ISTR ICT O F FL OR ID A M IA M I DIV ISIO N CA SE N O .17-cv-24173.KlN G FLORIDA BEA UTY FLOR A,IN C., a Florida forProfitCorporation, Plaintiff/counter-D efendant, EVER GREEN FRESH FA RM S,IN C. a California Dom estic Stock Corporation, ERIC M YD LAN D , an individual, a1V a ERIC W . M YD LAN D , a/k/a ERICK M' Y DLA ND ,a/k/a ERICK W .M Y D LAN D , D efendants/counter-plaintiffs. / O R D ER G M N TIN G M O TIO N TO D ISM ISS C O U NTE RC LA IM TH IS CAU SE com es before the Courtupon Plaintiff/c ounter-D efendantFlorida Beauty Flora,lnc.'s (tsFlorida Beauty'') M otion to Dismiss Defendr ts/counter-plaintiffs Evergreen Fresh Fanns,Inc.and EricM ydland's(collectively ûûEvergreen'')Amended Counterclaim (DE #1.4).Therein,FloridaBeuaty seeksan Order,pursuantto Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6),dismissing Evergreen'sAmendedCounterclaim forbreachofcontract(Count1)arguingthatEvergreenfails to identify any provision of the parties' agreem ent actually breached, and for negligent misrepresentationandfraudintheinducement(Counts11and111),arguingthatEvergreenfailsto plead thoseclaimswiththe specificity required by Rule 9(b)ofclaimssounding in fraud.This m atter is fully briefed,1and as set forth below , the Courtfinds that Florida Beauty's M otion shouldbegranted,thatEvergreen'sclaim forbreachofcontractbedismissedwithprejudice,and 1Evergreen hasfileditsResponseinOpposition (DE //15),andFloridaBeautyhasfiled itsReply inSupport(DE //18). Dockets.Justia.com that Evergreen's claim s for negligent misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement be dismissedwithoutprejudiceandwithleavetoamend. B ackground This matter arises from a sublease of warehouse space.Am ong other things,Florida Beauty leases warehouse space around the U nited States, w hich it occasionally subleases. Evergreen is a wholesaler and distributor of produce. In M ay of 2017, Florida Beauty and Evergreen entered into a contract w hereby Florida Beauty subleased w arehouse space to Evergreen. The sublease agreem ent,attached as ExhibitC to Florida Beauty's Am ended Com plaint (DE //8-3)requiresEvergreen to pay renton the firstday ofevery month.f#.at! 2.Florida Beauty alleges in its Am ended ComplaintthatEvergreen stopped m aking rentpaym ents after m aking theJune 1,2017payment,butcontinuesto occupy thewarehousespace despitedem ands to vacate. A ccordingly, Florida Beauty brought this action against Evergreen alleging- as relevanthere--claims forbreach ofcontractand unjustenrichmentarising outofEvergreens alleged breach ofthe sublease agreem ent. Evergreen filed a Counterclaim against Florida Beauty, alleging claim s for breach Qf contract,negligent m isrepresentation, and fraud in the inducem ent.See Evergreen's A m ended Counterclaim ,D E #11.Evergreen's counterclaim forbreach of contractalleges that,in addition to subleasing warehouse space,the sublease agreem ent w as for the sublease of certain coolers, and that Florida Beauty agreed to provide coolers capable of m aintaining a tem perature of 40 degrees Fahrenheitas a condition of the w arehousing services.Evergreen does notpointto any specific provision in the sublease agreem entconcem ing the subleasing of coolers,and does not pointto any specific provision concerning m aintenance ofany specific tem perature,orsuitability of'the warehouse space's use for any particular pup ose.N evertheless,Evergreen alleges that Florida Beauty breached the sublease agreem ent by failing to maintain the coolers at a telnperature sufficientto maintain the integrity ofthe merchandise Evergreen wasstoring in the warehousespace.Evergreen furtherallegesthatçûlEvergreen'sjlossasaresultoftheineffective coolers was or should have been within the reasonable contem plation ofthe parties,because Florida Beauty is in the business oftransporting tlowersand is wellaware ofthe refrigeration needsofthe m erchandise.'' ln its counterclaim s for negligent m isrepresentation and fraud in the inducem ent, Evergreen alleges that Florida Beauty m ade a statem entto Evergreen concerning the fitness of the coolers for a particular pup ose- that they could maintain a temperature sufficient to preserve Evergreen'smerchandise- thatEvergreen believedto be tnle,butwasin factfalse,an. d Florida Beauty knew itto be false.Evergreen doesnotallegewhere,when,how,to orby whom , thzough whatm ethod ofcom munication,written ororal,FloridaBeauty m adethisstatem ent. The sublease agreem entprovidesthatEvergreen isto take possession ofthe warehouse spaceEûin ançasis'condition,and EEvergreen)acknowledgesthatnorepresentationswithrespect to the condition thereofhave been made to it.''Id.at! 3.Further,the sublease agreement providesthat ûsgFlorida Beauty''shallhave no dutiesto maintain the (warehouse spaceq.''1d. The sublease agreem ent also provides that '1N o oral statem ents or prior w ritten m aterial not specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect. (Evergreen) agrees that in entering into this Sublease and accepting the (warehouse space premisesl, it relies solely upon the representatiogns and agreements contained in this Sublease, the exhibits attached thereto and the written agreem ents,ifany,executed contem poraneously herew ith.This Sublease, including the Exhibits w hich are attached hereto and a parthereof,constitutes the entire agreem ent of the parties and shall not be conditioned, m odified or supplem ented exceptby a w ritten agreem entexecuted by both parties.'' 1d.at! 14.f.Thesubleaseagreementcontainsnoprovisionsrelating totheleasingofcoolers,or to m aintenance by Florida Beauty of any particulartem perature in any coolers orthe warehouse space itself. Florida Beauty'sM otion to Dism iss arguesthat,because Evergreen bases itsbreach of contrad counterclaim on an alleged term relating to coolers and maintenance of a specified telnperature, and such a term does not exist, Florida Beauty cannot be in breach.A s to Evergreen'scounterclaim sfornegligentm isrepresentation and fraud in the inducem ent,Florida Beauty argues thatEvergreen's Am ended Counterclaim does notplead those counts with the specificityrequiredbyFedR.Civ.P.9(b). ll. LegalStandard To sulviveaRule 12(b)(6)motion to dismiss,acomplaintmustincludeiûenoughfactsto statea claim to reliefthatisplausible on itsface,''BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550 U .S.544,570 (2007).1ûA claim hasfacialplausibility whentheplaintiffpleadsfactualcontentthatallowsthe courtto draw the reasonable inferencethatthe defendantisliable forthe m isconductalleged-'' Ashcro.ftv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,663(2009).Allegationsabsentsupport ingfactsaren0tentitled to thispresum ption ofveracity.ld at681. W hen evaluating a m otion to dismiss,the Courtmusttake all of the well-pled factual allegationsastnze.fJ.at664.However,Clthreadbarerecitalsoftheelem entsofa cause ofaction, supported by m ere conclusory statem ents,do notsuffice.''Id at663.And,the Court's duty to acceptthe factualallegations in the com plaintas true doesnotrequire itto ignore specifc factual details 'din favorofgeneralorconclusory allegations.''Griffln lndus.,Inc.v.lrvin,496 F.3d 1189,1205-06 (11th Cir.2007).The Courtmustdismissa complaintthatdoesnotpresenta plausible claim dem onstrating entitlem entto relief.In deciding a m otion to dism iss,the Court mustaccept a complaint's well-pled allegations as true.Erickaon v.Pardus,551 U.S.89,94 (2007).Such allegations mustbe construed in the lightmostfavorable to the Plaintiff Am. DentalAss' nv.CignaCorp.,605F.3d 1283,1288(11thcir.2010).Cllnanalyzingthesufficiency ofthecomplaint,gthe Court)limitgsl(itsjconsideration to the well-pleaded factualallegations, documentscentraltoorreferencedinthecomplaint,andmattersjudiciallynoticed.''fa Grastav. First Union Sec., lnc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th cir.2004).The Courtmay also consult docum ents thatare attached to the Com plaintor m otion to dism iss underthe t'incorporation by reference''doctrine.The Eleventh Circuit has defined the incorporation by reference doctrine to m ean' gAJ documentattached to a motion to dismissmay be considered by the court withoutconvertingthemotionintooneforsummaryjudgmentonly iftheattached document is: (1) central to the plaintiffs claim; and (2) undisputed. . . Stundisputed''in this contextm eansthatthe authenticity ofthe documentis not challenged. Horsley v Feldt,304 F.3d 1125,1134 (11thcir.2002)(internalcitationsomitted);seealsoDay . v Taylor,400F.3d 1272,1276(11thcir.2005). . Finally,whereacomplaint(orcounterclaim)allegesfraud,Fed.R.Civ.P.9(b)imposes heightened pleading standards, requiring that 1ça party must state with particularity the circum stancesconstituting fraud.'' Ill-D iscussion Florida Beauty's central argum ent with respect to Evergreen's breach of contract counterclaim is that Evergreen cnnnot state a claim for breach of contract because Evergreen cannotidentify a single provision ofthe sublease agreem entthatFlorida Beauty breached.The Courtagrees.To stateaclaim forbreach ofcontract,aplaintiff(orcounter-plaintiff,asthecase maybe)mustallegefactsshowingthatthefollowingthzeeelementsaremet:(1)avalidcontract; (2)amaterialbreach;and (3)dnmages.Havensv.CoastFlorida,P.A.,117 So.3d 1179,1181 (Fla.2dDCA 2013).W hileEvergreen doesallegethatthepartiesenteredinto avalidcontrad, the klbreach''Evergreen com plains of- failure to m aintain the w arehouse space or coolers at40 degreesFahrelzheit- isnotatenu (materialorotherwise)ofthatcontract.Accordingly,Florida Beauty had no duty under the sublease agreem entto m aintain any tem perature,and its alleged failure to do so cannotsel've asthe basis fora claim thatFlorida Beauty breached the sublease agreem ent.Therefore,Evergreen'sbreach ofcontractcotmterclaim mustbedism issed. W ith respect to Evergreen's negligent misrepresentation and fraud in the inducem ent counterclaims,the Courtagrees thatEvergreen did notplead those claims with the specificity required by Rule 9(b). Evergreen simply alleges that Florida Beauty made a statement. Evergreen doesnotallege the who,the when,the how,the to whom ,oranything from which Florida Beauty can evaluate Evergreen'sclaim offraud.Theessence ofEvergreen'sclaim isthat FloridaBeauty musthaveknown thereason why Evergreen was subleasing thewarehousespace becauseFloridaBeauty wasinasimilarbusiness.Thisisnotenough tocomply with Rule9(b). A ccordingly, Evergreen's claim s for negligent m isrepresentation and fraud in the inducem ent m ustalso be dism issed. Therefore, it is O R D ERE D, A D JUD GED , and DE CR EED that Plaintiff/counter- Defendant Florida Beauty Flora, lnc.'s M otion to Dism iss Defendants/counter-plaintiffs AmendedCounterclaim (DE #14)be,and the samehereby isGRANTED.Counts11and I11of the Amended Counterclaim (DE #11)are DISM ISSED without prejudice.Countlof the Amended Counterclaim is DISM ISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended counterclaim w ithin 20 days ofthe date ofthis Order. D O N E and O RD ERED in cham bers at the Jam es Lawrence K ing Federal Justice Building and U nited States Courthouse,M iam i,Florida,this ' # cc: day ofFebnlary, 018. R w JAM ES LA W REN CE KIN G UN ITED STATES DISTR ICT U AlIcounselofrecord 6 E
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
