Posen Constr., Inc. v. Lee Cnty.
| Decision Date | 31 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:11–CV–00640–UA–DNF. |
| Citation | 921 F.Supp.2d 1350 |
| Parties | POSEN CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff, v. LEE COUNTY, T.Y. Lin International, CPH Engineers, Inc., Stephen N. Romano, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Adam R. Alaee, Charles D. Harper, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff.
John S. Turner, Ashley Roberts, Fort Myers, FL, Jon Dale Derrevere, Peri Rose Huston–Miller, Derrevere, Hawkes, Black & Cozad, West Palm Beach, FL, Frank A. Hamner, Frank A. Hamner, PA, Winter Park, FL, for Defendants.
This cause comes before the Court on the following:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Dkt. 1 ¦Complaint ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 19 ¦Motion to Dismiss (Counts VIII, IX) (CPH Engineers, Inc., Stephen N.¦
¦ ¦Romano, P.E.) ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 20 ¦Motion to Dismiss (Counts VI, VII) (T.Y. Lin International) ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 28 ¦Motion to Dismiss (Counts II, IV, V) (Lee County) ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 30 ¦Opposition ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 31 ¦Opposition ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 37 ¦Reply (T.Y. Lin International) ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 43 ¦Reply (CPH Engineers, Inc., Stephen N. Romano, P.E.) ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 55 ¦Complaint in Intervention (Safeco Insurance Company of America) ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 62 ¦Motion to Dismiss (T.Y. Lin International) ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 66 ¦Notice of Adoption of Motion to Dismiss (CPH, Romano) ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 67 ¦Notice of Adoption of Response (Safeco) ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 68 ¦Opposition ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 71 ¦Motion to Dismiss (Counts II, IV, V) (Lee County) ¦
+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Dkt. 76 ¦Opposition ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The Complaint in this case includes the following causes of action:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Count I ¦Breach of Contract ¦Lee County ¦
+-----------+------------------------------------+----------------------------¦
¦Count II ¦Quantum Meruit ¦Lee County ¦
+-----------+------------------------------------+----------------------------¦
¦Count III ¦Declaratory Judgment ¦Lee County ¦
+-----------+------------------------------------+----------------------------¦
¦Count IV ¦Violation of Ch. 218.725, ¦Lee County ¦
¦ ¦Florida Statutes ¦ ¦
+-----------+------------------------------------+----------------------------¦
¦Count V ¦Declaratory Judgment ¦Lee County ¦
+-----------+------------------------------------+----------------------------¦
¦Count VI ¦Negligent Misrepresentation ¦T.Y. Lin ¦
+-----------+------------------------------------+----------------------------¦
¦Count VII ¦Negligence ¦T.Y. Lin ¦
+-----------+------------------------------------+----------------------------¦
¦Count VIII ¦Negligence ¦CPH ¦
+-----------+------------------------------------+----------------------------¦
¦Count IX ¦Negligence ¦Romano ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The Complaint in Intervention includes the same causes of action.
This case is about a construction contract entered into between Posen Construction, Inc. (“Rosen”) and Lee County, Florida (“Lee County”) to widen Summerlin Road from four to six lanes, and construct a four-lane overpass at College Parkway (the “Project”). Lee County agreed to pay Posen $25,323,685.44 to complete the Project. In addition to naming Lee County as a defendant, Posen names as defendants several other parties involved in the Project. Those named Defendants had been hired by and had contracted with Lee County instead of Posen. Specifically, Posen sues T.Y. Lin International (“TY LIN”), CPH Engineers, Inc. (“CPH”), and Stephen R. Romano (“Romano”). Posen alleges, for example, that Defendants failed to notify Posen of certain sub-surface conditions that caused significant rework. Posen also alleges that the defendants improperly approved fill material that caused several delays and additional work. Ultimately, according to Posen, the actions of Defendants caused several delays and disruptions that increased the cost of Posen's work. Posen filed this lawsuit to recover damages as a result of these various delays.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires more than bare legal conclusions in order to survive a motion to dismiss. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679–81, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Concerned that courts were reading too broadly its prior ruling in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), the United States Supreme Court clarified that Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The Court was careful to caution district courts from taking the plausibility requirement too far to a “heightened fact pleading of specifics.” Id. Accordingly, this Court will take a two step approach when faced with a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6): (1) eliminate from the complaint all allegations that are merely legal conclusions; and (2) take the remaining well pleaded factual allegations as true and determine if there is a plausible claim for relief.
Because the Court has the independent obligation to assure itself that it possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, the Court will consider the sovereign immunity issue first.
Lee County moves to dismiss Counts II, IV and V of the Posen Complaint. See Dkt. 28. With regards to Count II, Lee County claims it is entitled to sovereign immunity against Posen's claim (in quantum meruit) for additional expenses because the additional expenses were neither contemplated by the contract nor allowed by a contract change order. The parties have each discussed issues that raise questions about the Court's jurisdiction. There are two: first, the Court lacks jurisdiction because of the Eleventh Amendment; and second, the Court lacks jurisdiction as a result of the operation of state-based sovereign immunity principles.
1. Count II
Lee County's argument that Count II must be dismissed relies in principal on two state court decisions that narrowly define an implied waiver of sovereign immunity to exclude damages outside the scope of the express terms of a written contract. See County of Brevard v. Miorelli Eng'g, Inc., 703 So.2d 1049 (1998); Southern Roadbuilders, Inc. v. Lee County, 495 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). A cursory reading of these cases initially suggests Lee County's desired outcome. Posen, citing only a single case, summarily dismisses the application of these cases in favor of an analysis guided by the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Whether the defendants can claim sovereign immunity under the state law explained in Miorelli and Southern Roadbuilders is a question that is analytically distinct from whether the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to this lawsuit. Both parties miss the mark by conflating the two jurisdictional issues that are potentially at play.
As a general matter, sovereign immunity is defined simply as the privilege of a sovereign not to be sued without its consent. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 16–17, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). “The Eleventh Amendment confirmed, rather than established, sovereign immunity as a constitutional principle; it follows that the scope of the States' immunity from suit is demarcated not by the text of the Amendment alone but by fundamental postulates implicit in the constitutional design.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 728, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999). For that reason the Eleventh Amendment has been described as a jurisdictional gatekeeper for federal courts, as it “deals only with federal jurisdiction to hear suits against the state, not with the state's immunity from suit in any forum.” 1Hufford v. Rodgers, 912 F.2d 1338, 1340–41 (11th Cir.1990) (internal citations omitted). Of course, “[a] State may waive its sovereign immunity at its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perry v. Schumacher Grp. of La., Corp.
...So. 2d 1244, 1248 n.9 (Fla. 1993) (holding that A.R. Moyer is limited strictly to its facts). See also Posen Constr., Inc. v. Lee County, 921 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1361 (M.D. Fla. 2013). Because the case currently before the Court is far removed from the field of construction and does not invol......
-
Appalachian Stream Restoration, LLC v. Kentuchy
...waived its sovereign immunity by authorizing the state to enter into valid contracts with private parties." Posen Constr. v. Lee County, 921 F. Supp.2d 1350, 1356 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (citing Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dept. of Corrections, 471 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1984)). There has been no such holding ......
-
Macauley v. Collier Cnty. Sheriff Office
...Florida law to state claims heard on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction . . . .”); see also Posen Const., Inc. v. 15 Lee Cnty., 921 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1357 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (noting that state sovereign immunity is “not a jurisdictional bar to this Court's ability to adjudicate a claim; it ......
-
Publix Super Mkts. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
... PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Plaintiff, v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY and NATIONAL SURETY ... Consolid ... Gov't of Augusta-Richmond Cnty. , 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 ... (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Lawrence v ... breach. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Intrastate Constr ... Corp. , No. 10-61064-CIV, 2011 WL 13186654, *2 (S.D. Fla ... ...