Gaines v. Robinson Aviation (Rva), Inc., Case No: 6:14-cv-391-Orl-40GJK
| Decision Date | 04 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 6:14-cv-391-Orl-40GJK |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
| Parties | JOSHUA GAINES, Plaintiff, v. ROBINSON AVIATION (RVA), INC., Defendant. |
This cause comes before the Court on the following matters:
This lawsuit arises out of a pre-suit settlement agreement which attempted to resolve claims related to a tragic airplane crash that resulted in the death of Justin Lee Gaines (the "Decedent"). On February 29, 2012, the Decedent was a passenger on an aircraft approaching the Melbourne, Florida International Airport. (Doc. 15, ¶ 4). Defendant, Robinson Aviation, Inc. ("RVA"), operated the airport control tower by contract with the Federal Aviation Administration. (Id. ¶ 5). While the aircraft was landing at Melbourne International Airport, it crashed. (Id. ¶ 7). The Decedent died as a result. (Id.).
On December 11, 2012, Joshua Gaines ("Plaintiff") was appointed as personal representative for the Decedent's estate. (Doc. 28, ¶ 5). On September 11, 2013, RVA alleges that it entered into a binding and enforceable settlement agreement with the Decedent's estate which resolved all claims related to the Decedent's death. (Id. ¶ 6). In furtherance of this settlement, RVA states that Gaines tendered a unilaterally drafted and executed release to RVA on September 30, 2013. (Id. ¶ 7).
Plaintiff, as personal representative for the Decedent's estate, initiated this lawsuit on February 25, 2014 by filing a complaint in the circuit court for the Eighteenth JudicialCircuit in and for Brevard County, Florida. (Doc. 2). On March 11, 2014, RVA removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). On April 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which remains Plaintiff's operative pleading in this case. (Doc. 15). In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two claims for relief. Count 1 alleges a claim for negligence arising under the Florida Wrongful Death Act. (Id. ¶¶ 1-10). Count 2 alleges a claim for breach of the pre-suit settlement agreement that the parties allegedly entered into prior to Plaintiff's filing of the instant lawsuit.2 (Id. ¶¶ 11-16).
On May 19, 2014, RVA countersued. (Doc. 28). Counterclaim 1 alleges a claim for indemnification. (Id. ¶¶ 11-18). Counterclaim 2 alleges a claim for breach of contract. (Id. ¶¶ 19-27). Counterclaim 3 alleges a claim for specific performance of the same pre-suit settlement agreement alleged in Count 2 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.3 (Id. ¶¶ 28-35).
Plaintiff moves to dismiss RVA's counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to state claims upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 30). Courts evaluate motions to dismiss counterclaims under the same standards as a motion to dismiss a complaint. See Burger King Corp. v. Holder, 844 F. Supp. 1528, 1529 (S.D.Fla. 1993). In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). District courts must accept all well-pleaded allegations within the complaint as true. Id. at 555. An allegation is well-pleaded when the plaintiff alleges sufficient factual allegations to "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Mere legal conclusions or recitation of the elements of a claim are not enough. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Courts must view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and must resolve any doubts as to the sufficiency of the complaint in the plaintiff's favor. Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff moves to dismiss all three of RVA's counterclaims for failing to state claims upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 30). Plaintiff essentially asserts that all three counterclaims fail to state claims for relief because RVA has failed to attach a copy of the contract at issue or to include the relevant portions of that contract within its counterclaims. (Id. at pp. 5-9). As such, Plaintiff contends that the settlement agreement, or the relevant provisions which RVA intends to enforce, do not exist. (Id. at p. 10). Plaintiff additionally attacks RVA's indemnification claim on the grounds that a defendant cannot assert indemnification against a plaintiff; indemnification necessarily requires a third party. (Id. at pp. 4-6).
RVA responds in opposition by stating that the settlement agreement at issue in its counterclaims contains a confidentiality provision that prohibits RVA from filing it with the Court. (Doc. 33, pp. 3-4). Further, RVA states that the settlement agreement is in fact the same settlement agreement which Plaintiff is trying to enforce in his AmendedComplaint; any assertion by Plaintiff that he does not know what settlement agreement or what provisions to which RVA's counterclaims refer is disingenuous. (Id. at p. 4).
The Court first addresses Counterclaim 2—RVA's claim for breach of contract. In order to state a claim for breach of contract in Florida, a claimant must establish three elements: (1) the existence of a valid contract, (2) a material breach, and (3) damages resulting from the breach. Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006). A complaint need not allege an offer, acceptance, consideration, or a meeting of the minds but may instead generally allege the existence of a valid contract. See Friedman v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d 56, 58 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008).
Here, RVA alleges that Plaintiff and RVA entered into a valid settlement agreement that resolved all claims arising out of Decedent's death. (Doc. 28, ¶¶ 6, 25). RVA further alleges that Plaintiff breached this settlement agreement by initiating the instant lawsuit. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8, 27). Finally, RVA alleges that it has incurred damages as a result of Plaintiff's breach, including attorney's fees to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. (Id. ¶ 10). Since the Court must accept RVA's allegations as true, RVA has stated a proper claim for breach of contract. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Plaintiff's assertion that RVA's counterclaim must be dismissed because RVA failed to attach a copy of the settlement agreement or the relevant portions thereof is misplaced. Although the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure require a plaintiff to attach the contract at issue or to incorporate the disputed provisions within his complaint, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have no such requirement. AGSC Marine Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Underground, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-474-T-30TGW, 2012 WL 2087441, at *2 (M.D.Fla. June 8, 2012).
Having found that RVA has stated a claim for breach of contract in Counterclaim 2, the Court turns to Counterclaim 3—titled "Action for Specific Performance." As noted earlier, the Court construes Counterclaim 3 as a claim for breach of contract, as specific performance is not a claim for relief, but a remedy. Therefore, the question presented to the Court is whether Counterclaim 3 should be dismissed for failing to state a claim for breach of contract.
RVA alleges that Plaintiff and RVA entered into a valid settlement agreement that resolved all claims arising out of the Decedent's death. (Doc. 28, ¶¶ 6, 29). RVA also alleges that Plaintiff breached this agreement by initiating this lawsuit. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8). Finally, RVA alleges it has suffered damages as a result of Plaintiff's breach. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 33). Accordingly, RVA has stated a claim for breach of contract. Rollins, 951...
To continue reading
Request your trial