Jerich USA, Inc. v. Ace Transport Miami, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:24-cv-20697-DPG

JERICH USA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACE TRANSPORT MIAMI, LLC,

Defendant.

/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”)

[ECF No. 20]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record, and is otherwise fully advised.

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED.

After the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint as an improper shotgun pleading,

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging claims for breach of contract (Count I) and

unjust enrichment (Count II). [ECF No. 19]. Defendant subsequently filed this Motion seeking

dismissal of both counts for failure to state a claim. [ECF No. 20]. Before reaching the merits of

the Motion’s arguments, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint constitutes a shotgun

pleading because Count II impermissibly realleges and incorporates all the preceding

paragraphs, including those of Count I. [ECF No. 19 at 4]. The Eleventh Circuit has long

condemned this practice. Keith v. DeKalb Cnty., 749 F.3d 1034, 1045 n.39 (11th Cir. 2014)

(“The complaint, through its incorporation into successive counts all preceding allegations and

counts, is a quintessential ‘shotgun’ pleading—the sort of pleading we have been roundly

condemning for 30 years”). Given this deficiency, the Court finds that a dismissal without

prejudice is warranted here.

Even so, the Court will address Defendant’s argument that the Amended Complaint

should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for two reasons: (1) Plaintiff’s claims are vague

and ambiguous; and (2) Plaintiff lacks standing to assert its claims. The Court will take each

argument in turn.

A. Plaintiff’s Claims Are Not Impermissibly Vague and Ambiguous

“As the Eleventh Circuit has noted, ‘the threshold of sufficiency that a complaint

must meet to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is exceedingly low.’”

Mishkin v. Gurian, No. 06-80489-CIV-RYSKAMP/VITUNAC, 2007 WL 1461797, at *1

(S.D. Fla. May 16, 2007). Plaintiff’s allegations meet this threshold.

“In order to state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff need only allege the

existence of 1) a valid contract; 2) a material breach; and 3) damages.” Geter v. Galardi S.

Enterprises, Inc., 43 F. Supp. 3d 1322, 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (cleaned up); JGT, Inc. v.

Ashbritt, Inc., No.11-60320-CIV, 2011 WL 13217137, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2011).

“For breach of oral contract claims specifically, plaintiffs must allege ‘facts that, if taken as

true, demonstrate that the parties mutually assented to “a certain and definite proposition”

and left no essential terms open.’” K3 Enterprises, Inc. v. Sasowski, No. 20-24441-CIV,

2022 WL 1499894, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2022) (quoting W.R. Townsend Contracting,

Inc. v. Jensen Civ. Const., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)).

“A claim for unjust enrichment has three elements: (1) the plaintiff has conferred a

benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant voluntarily accepted and retained that benefit;

and (3) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendants to retain

it without paying the value thereof.” Virgilio v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 680 F.3d 1329, 1337

(11th Cir. 2012). At the motion to dismiss stage “it is enough that Plaintiffs have alleged

that they conferred a benefit to Defendants to sustain an unjust enrichment claim.”

Rubinstein v. Keshet Inter Vivos Tr., No. 17-61019-CIV, 2018 WL 3730876, at *8 (S.D.

Fla. July 5, 2018) (cleaned up).

As to Count I, the Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant entered

into an oral agreement where Defendant would unload, palletize, shrink wrap, cross dock,

and store in good condition shipments of pallets of paper products for Plaintiff and

Plaintiff’s customer. Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff would pay all monthly

warehouse storage fees to Defendant in exchange for Defendant storing the products. The

Amended Complaint alleges that this agreement was breached by Defendant when the

products were damaged while being stored by the Defendant. According to Plaintiff, this

breach subjected Plaintiff to a claim by Liberty Paper for $195,845.20. As to Count II, the

Amended Complaint alleges that: (1) Plaintiff paid Defendant over $300,000 in fees for

Defendant to store the products in good condition; (2) Defendant continuously accepted the

monthly payments made by Plaintiff; and (3) the products were damaged while in

Defendant’s care, custody, and control.

Defendant does not dispute the existence of the Agreement between it and Plaintiff

for storage of the products; nor does Defendant dispute that it obtained a direct benefit by

accepting over $300,000 in fees from Plaintiff for the storage of the products. Rather,

Defendant takes issue with Plaintiff not specifying “how or when” Liberty made its claim

to Plaintiff and “how the goods were allegedly damaged.” [ECF No. 20 at 5-6]. However,

but for the shotgun pleading deficiency noted at the outset, the Court finds that the Amended

Complaint sufficiently pleads claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. See K3

Enterprises, Inc., 2022 WL 1499894, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2022) (finding complaint

adequately stated a claim for breach of oral contract when it alleged that defendants breached

the agreement “in ways that caused losses for [plaintiff]”); Remember Everyone Deployed Inc.

v. AC2T Inc., No. 20-CV-62355, 2021 WL 7542978, at *6 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2021) (finding

plaintiff adequately pled breach of oral contract after sufficient facts regarding material

contractual terms were alleged); Rubinstein, 2018 WL 3730876, at *8 (finding unjust

enrichment adequately pled when plaintiff alleged that defendants were conferred a benefit);

Yormak v. Yormak, No. 2:14-CV-33-FTM-29CM, 2014 WL 3611236, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 22,

2014) (finding same).

B. Plaintiff Has Standing to Bring Claims1

To establish Article III standing, a “plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2)

that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be

redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 587 U.S. 330, 338 (2016).

Said otherwise, “a party has standing to sue when it has a sufficient stake in a justiciable

controversy, with a legally cognizable interest which would be affected by the outcome of the

litigation.” Burger King Corporation v. E-Z Eating 8th Corp., No. 07-20181-CIV-

COOKE/BROWN, 2008 WL 11330723, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 22, 2008). “The focus of the

standing inquiry is whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring this suit.” Rebman v. Follett

Higher Educ. Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 624, 629 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (cleaned up).

Defendant contends Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims for the alleged damaged

1 Beyond passing conclusory statements that “Plaintiff does not have proper legal standing”, Defendant fails to

include any relevant authority in support of its standing argument. [ECF No. 20 at 5]. Moreover, Defendant

improperly bases its standing argument on Rule 12(b)(6). See Pulse Acquisition Corp. v. Jacksonville Inj. Ctr., LLC,

No. 3:19-CV-1192-J-34JRK, 2020 WL 5526399, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2020) (citing Region 8 Forest Serv.

Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 807 n.8 (11th Cir. 1993).

products because the Amended Complaint “expressly admits” Plaintiff is not the legal owner of

the products. Whether Plaintiff is the legal owner of the products is not dispositive of whether

Plaintiff has standing to assert its claims.

Plaintiff alleges that it entered into an oral agreement with Defendant and that the injury it

seeks to redress is premised on Defendant’s breach of that agreement. Alternatively, Plaintiff

alleges that it conferred a benefit to Defendant by paying Defendant monthly fees for the

storage of the products in good condition. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that it has suffered a

concrete economic injury that is traceable to the conduct of the Defendant. Rife v. Newell

Brands, Inc., 632 F. Supp. 3d 1276, 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2022) (“An economic injury is the

‘epitome’ of a concrete injury.”) (citing MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet Fla., Inc., 918 F.3d

1312, 1318 (11th Cir. 2019)). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has an interest in this

litigation sufficient to satisfy the standing requirement. See AST & Sci. LLC v. Delclaux

Partners SA, No. 20-CV-23335, 2021 WL 3639830, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2021), report and

recommendation adopted, No. 20-CV-23335, 2021 WL 3634814 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2021)

(rejecting standing challenge when breach of contract claim was premised on parties’

agreement); Randy Rosenberg, D.C., P.A. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-61422, 2019 WL

3886160, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2019) (finding plaintiff had standing to sue under contract

because plaintiff alleged defendant paid them less than money owed and if plaintiff prevailed it

would be entitled to the remainder of money owed); Melton v. Century Arms, Inc., 243 F. Supp.

3d 1290, 1297-1300 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (holding that alleged overpayment, loss of value, and loss

of usefulness was sufficient to establish standing to bring claim for unjust enrichment);

Masforce Eur., BVBA v. Mastry Marine & Indus. Design, Inc., No. 8:11-CV-1814-T-24AEP,

2013 WL 12156533, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2013) (finding plaintiff had standing to bring

breach of contract claim because it successfully asserted that it was a party to the contract).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 20], is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [ECF No.

19], is DISMISSED without prejudice. Within ten (10) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a

Second Amended Complaint which cures the shotgun pleading deficiency.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 15th day of August, 2024.

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRI DGE

ce: All Counsel of Record