Floral Logistics of Miami, Inc. v. N.Y. Garden Flower Wholesale, Inc.

1

FLORAL LOGISTICS OF MIAMI, INC., Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK GARDEN FLOWER WHOLESALE, INC.; et al., Defendants.

No. 23-20073-CIV-ALTONAGA/Damian

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

June 30, 2023

ORDER

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Floral Logistics of Miami Inc.'s (“Floral Logistics[']”) Motion to Dismiss Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff New York Garden Flower Wholesale Inc.'s (“NY Garden['s]”) Second Amended Counterclaim [ECF No. 35], filed on May 4, 2023. Defendants, NY Garden and Dhan Paih filed a Response [ECF No 37], to which Floral Logistics filed a Reply [ECF No. 39]. The Court has carefully considered Defendants' Second Amended Counterclaim (see Second Am. Answer [ECF No 34] 9-19), the parties' written submissions, and applicable law. For the following reasons, Floral Logistics' Motion is granted in part.

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises from a delivery of wilted flowers. (See generally Compl. [ECF No. 12]). Defendant, NY Garden, is a floral distributor that provides flowers to “approximately twenty retail flower shops and businesses in the boroughs of New York: Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Long Island.” (Second Am. Answer 10).^[1] Around April 2022, NY Garden “contacted farms in Colombia . . . to obtain the best quality flowers for Mother's Day on May 8, 2022.” (Id. (alteration added)). Floral Logistics promised NY Garden that it would deliver the flowers “via air transportation from Colombia to Florida and then by ground courier from Florida to NY Garden's business location.” (Id. 10-11, 14). The parties agreed that Floral Logistics would deliver the flowers by the last week of April so that NY Gardens would have enough time to distribute the flowers to the local flower shops before Mother's Day. (See id. 11-12).

NY Garden alleges that Floral Logistics failed to hold up its end of the bargain. (See Id. 9-19). Not only did Floral Logistics deliver the flowers late, but the flowers arrived “in bad condition, burned, ‘warmed' out, and defective such that they could not be sold to retailers.” (Id. 11, 14). According to NY Garden, it paid $80,909.31 to Floral Logistics for its defective services and lost an additional $51,081 in profit. (See id. 11, 17-18). As a result, NY Garden alleges a breach-of-agreement claim. (See id. 10-12). “In the event [the] Court finds no contract exists between the parties,” NY Garden pleads negligence and unjust enrichment claims in the alternative. (Id. 12-19 (alteration added)).

Floral Logistics moves to dismiss NY Garden's negligence and unjust enrichment claims for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. (See generally Mot.).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Rule 12(b)(6). “A motion to dismiss a counterclaim under [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6) is treated the same as a motion to dismiss a complaint.” Fabricant v. Sears Roebuck, 202 F.R.D. 306, 308 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (alterations added; citation omitted). “To survive a motion to dismiss [under Rule 12(b)(6)], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (alteration added; quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Although this pleading standard “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' . . . it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. (alteration added; quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Pleadings must contain “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (alteration added; citation omitted). “[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (alteration added; citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

To meet this “plausibility standard,” a party must “plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678 (alteration added; citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The mere possibility the defendant acted unlawfully is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.” Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1261 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449 (2012). When considering a motion to dismiss a counterclaim, a court must construe the counterclaim in the light most favorable to the counter-claimant and take its factual allegations as true. See Fabricant, 202 F.R.D. at 308; Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing SEC v. ESM Grp., Inc., 835 F.2d 270, 272 (11th Cir. 1988)).

Rule 9(b). “Claims that sound in fraud must comply not only with the plausibility standard articulated in Twombly and Iqbal, but also the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b).” Young v. Grand Canyon Univ., Inc., 57 F.4th 861, 875 (11th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). As the Eleventh Circuit recently explained,

Rule 9(b) is satisfied if the complaint sets forth (1) precisely what statements were made in what documents or oral representations or what omissions were made, and (2) the time and place of each such statement and the person responsible for making (or, in the case of omissions, not making) same, and (3) the content of such statements and the manner in which they misled the plaintiff, and (4) what the defendants obtained as a consequence of the fraud.

Id. 875-76 (quoting Tello v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 494 F.3d 956, 972 (11th Cir. 2007)).

Rule 9(g). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(g), “[i]f an item of special damage is claimed, it must be specifically stated.” Id. (alteration added). This requirement is meant to “inform defending parties as to the nature of the damages claimed in order to avoid surprise; and to inform the court of the substance of the complaint.” Great Am. Indem. Co. v. Brown, 307 F.2d 306, 308 (5th Cir. 1962) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Floral Logistics seeks dismissal of NY Garden's second and third counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See generally Mot.). Floral Logistics argues NY Garden fails to plead its negligence claim with particularity and, in any case, the claim is barred by the independent tort doctrine. (See id. 3-7). Floral Logistics further argues that NY Garden's unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed on shotgun pleading grounds. (See id. 7-8). Separately, Floral Logistics argues NY Garden's request for lost profits must be stricken from the first and second counterclaims. (See id. 8). The Court addresses each argument in turn.

A. Negligence

NY Garden's second counterclaim - captioned “(Alternative Pleading: Negligent Misrepresentation)” - alleges three different negligence claims: negligent misrepresentation, negligent hiring, and negligent delivery of the flowers. (Second Am. Answer 12-18; Resp. 6). Floral Logistics addresses only the negligent misrepresentation claim directly, arguing NY Garden has not properly alleged the elements of such a claim. (See Mot. 3-7; Reply 4-6).

1. Shotgun Pleading

As an initial matter, NY Garden's commingling of claims makes the second counterclaim a shotgun pleading. “If doing so would promote clarity,” Rule 10(b) requires that “each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . be stated in a separate count or defense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) (alteration added); see also Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). “The ‘self-evident' purpose of th[is] rule[] is ‘to require the pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that his adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading.'” Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324 (alteration adopted; other alterations added; quoting Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015)). Pleadings that violate Rule 10(b) “are often disparagingly referred to as ‘shotgun pleadings'” and have been repeatedly condemned by the Eleventh Circuit. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320; see also Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001) (collecting cases).

Because the elements of a negligent misrepresentation, negligent hiring, and negligent delivery claim are different, stating the three claims in different counts would undoubtedly “promote clarity.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b); compare Simon v. Celebration Co., 883 So.2d 826, 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (setting out the standard for a negligent misrepresentation claim) with Mega Int'l Trade Grp., Inc. v. A-Link Freight, Inc., No. 14-24757-Civ, 2015 WL 3823680, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2015) (setting out the standard for a negligent hiring claim) and Lake Parker Mall, Inc. v. Carson, 327 So.2d 121, 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (setting out the standard for a general negligence claim).^[2] The failure to separate each cause of action or claim for relief into a different count thus makes NY Garden's second counterclaim a shotgun pleading that is “flatly forbidden by the spirit, if not the letter,” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320 (alterations adopted; citation and footnote call number omitted).

Recognizing that this is NY Garden's third attempt to plead its counterclaims, the Court goes on to address the parties' arguments concerning negligent misrepresentation and negligent delivery.^[3]

2. Failure to State a Claim

First as reflected in the second counterclaim's title, NY Garden alleges negligent misrepresentation. (See Second Am. Answer 12). According to NY Garden, “Floral Logistics, its servants, agents, employees, independent contractors, air couriers, and its...