Medmoun v. Home Depot U.S., Inc.

NEZHA MEDMOUN, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, and U.S. INSTALLATION GROUP, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation, Defendants.

No. 8:21-cv-1585-KKM-CPT

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

May 7, 2022

ORDER

KATHRYN KIMBALL MIZELLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Nezha Medmoun bought flooring from Home Depot and contracted with it to install that flooring in her home. Home Depot's subcontractor, U.S. Installation Group (USIG), installed some of the flooring but made mistakes in the process. A second installer from Home Depot attempted to fix those mistakes but stopped short when it found moisture under the floor. Medmoun alleges that the flooring materials were unfit for use in Florida and caused, together with USIG's faulty installation, the moisture.

When Home Depot refused to give Medmoun a refund without her signing a release of her claims, she opted to sue Home Depot and USIG. Home Depot and USIG both move to dismiss Medmoun's Complaint. The Court grants the motions in part, dismissing six of Medmoun's eight Counts.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

In September 2019, Medmoun went to Home Depot to purchase flooring materials. (Doc. 1-1 ¶ 13.) She met with salespeople from Home Depot and, upon their advice, purchased nine different flooring products (“Flooring Materials”). (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.) When she purchased the Flooring Materials, Medmoun signed a “Home Improvement Agreement” with Home Depot. (Doc. 8-1 at 2.) The Home Improvement Agreement obligated Home Depot or its service provider to “complete the Services in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with applicable law without causing damage to [Medmoun's home].” (Id. at 9.) But if Home Depot or its service provider discovered a condition that, “in its sole discretion” Home Depot or its service provider deemed “hazardous or unsafe, ” it would not start or continue any services. (Id.)

Around one month after Medmoun's visit to Home Depot, USIG, an exclusive installer for Home Depot, replaced a portion of the flooring in Medmoun's home with the Flooring Materials. (Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 18-21.) After the installation, Home Depot sent an inspector to review the installation and he noted that USIG made several mistakes when it replaced the flooring. (Id. ¶ 22-23.) A couple of months later, Home Depot sent Medmoun new flooring products as part of “an effort to resolve the issues with USIG's faulty installation.” (Id. ¶ 27.) A second installer attempted to “redo the job” by installing these new products on January 17, 2020, but stopped when it found a leak under the floor. (Id. ¶ 29-30.) The second installer told Medmoun she needed a plumber to fix it. (Id. ¶ 30.) As a result of the failed attempts to install the flooring, Medmoun and her family lacked a floor for several weeks. (Id. ¶ 32.)

Medmoun admits there was moisture under the floor, but alleges it was Home Depot's fault. Following the second installer's advice, Medmoun had a plumber inspect her home and he did not find any leaks. (Id. ¶ 38-39.) Although this plumber found no leaks, Medmoun alleges that there was moisture and that the first installer's mistakes and Home Depot's suggestion that she buy certain Flooring Materials that were not fit for use in Florida caused it. (Id. ¶ 39-42.) Medmoun hired a moisture expert who concluded that Home Depot should not have recommended the Flooring Materials because they “cause moisture due to the faulty methods used to install them in the field.” (Id. ¶ 43.) Medmoun ultimately hired a third party to replace the flooring and there has not been any issue related to moisture or a leak since the replacement. (Id. ¶¶ 51-52.)

On January 17, 2020, after the second installer refused to install the flooring, Medmoun's daughter called Home Depot on Medmoun's behalf. (Id. ¶ 48.) Through her daughter, Medmoun requested a “full refund of all the materials and the amounts paid for the faulty installation services.” (Id. ¶ 50.) Home Depot responded that, because Medmoun decided not to fix the leak under the floor, it chose to terminate the Home Improvement Agreement. (Id. at 29.) Home Depot offered a refund, but first required Medmoun release her claims against Home Depot. (Id. ¶ 50; id. at 29.) She refused.

Instead, Medmoun filed a class action lawsuit in state court against Home Depot and USIG. According to Medmoun, Home Depot treated Florida residents across the State the same way it treated her. (Id. ¶ 53.) In her first three Counts, Medmoun alleges that Home Depot violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and Medmoun is entitled to damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. (Id. ¶¶ 95-97, 101-102, 105.) In her fourth and fifth Counts, Medmoun alleges that Home Depot breached its contract with Medmoun and that USIG breached its contract- which it entered into for her benefit-with Home Depot. (Id. ¶¶ 111-13, 115-18.) Medmoun's sixth Count alleges that USIG was negligent and breached its duty of care when installing the floors. (Id. ¶¶ 120-22.) In the alternative, Medmoun's seventh Count alleges that Home Depot was negligent and breached its duty of care to Medmoun. (Id. ¶¶ 124-26.) Finally, Medmoun's eighth Count alleges that Home Depot breached an express warranty that the Flooring Materials were of sufficient quality for Medmoun's purposes and would last for multiple years. (Id. ¶¶ 128-29.) Medmoun alleges that she complied with all necessary conditions precedent to bringing the lawsuit. (Id. ¶ 62.)

Home Depot timely removed the action to this Court. (Doc. 1.) Medmoun moved to remand and this Court denied the motion, concluding that it had jurisdiction over this class action. (Doc. 21; Doc. 29.) Home Depot moves to stay or dismiss this action and USIG moves to dismiss. (Doc. 8; Doc. 36.) Medmoun responds in opposition. (Doc. 30; Doc. 38.) In the interim, the Court stayed discovery pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. (Doc. 37.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This pleading standard “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of‘further factual enhancement.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 557).

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is plausible on its face when a plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. When considering the motion, the court accepts all factual allegations of the complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). Courts should limit their “consideration to the well-pleaded factual allegations, documents central to or referenced in the complaint, and matters judicially noticed.” La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004).

III. ANALYSIS

Medmoun brings eight Counts, including three FDUTPA claims and a breach of express warranty against Home Depot, one breach of contract claim against Home Depot and one against USIG, and one negligence claim against Home Depot and one against USIG. Because Defendants contend that Medmoun failed to comply with Florida's statutory presuit notice requirements, Home Depot moves to stay and USIG moves to dismiss. Home Depot and USIG both also move to dismiss each Count for failure to state a claim. Medmoun responds to each motion, but she responds to Home Depot's motion only insofar as she argues against a stay of the case. Nonetheless, the Court must still decide whether Medmoun stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Giummo v. Olsen, 701 Fed.Appx. 922, 924 n.2 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (citation omitted) (noting that dismissing a complaint solely because a motion to dismiss is technically unopposed would be an abuse of discretion); Stubbs v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 549 Fed.Appx. 885, 887 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (deciding to grant a motion to dismiss only after assessing its legal merits despite also affirming treatment of motion as unopposed); accord Poor Sc Minority Just. Assn v. Chief Judge, Tenth Jud. Cir. Ct. of Fla., No. 8:19-CV-2889-T-02TGW, 2020 WL 3286140, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2020) (Jung, J.).

The Court denies Home Depot's Motion to Stay and grants-in-part and denies-in-part Home Depot and USIG's Motions to Dismiss. Specifically, the Court dismisses Medmoun's breach of contract claim against USIG (Count V) and her FDUTPA, negligence, and breach of express warranty claims against Home Depot (Counts I, II, III, VII, and VIII).

A. Medmoun Had No Obligation to Comply with § 558.003, Fla. Stat.

Home Depot moves to stay this action under § 558.003, Fla Stat, until it has been given the opportunity to inspect the construction defects that Medmoun alleges in her Complaint. (Doc. 8 at 22-24.) USIG moves to dismiss because it contends Medmoun failed to give it notice of the construction defect and an opportunity to cure. (Doc. 36 at 11-12.) Medmoun opposes Home Depot's motion, contending that she alleges no construction...