Reliable Marine Towing and Salvage LLC v. Dorado Custom Boats, LLC

Filing 20

ORDER denying 18 Defendant Dorado Custom Boats, LLC's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/27/2018. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RELIABLE MARINE TOWING AND
SALVAGE LLC, Successor in interest to
Cheryl Smith,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-669-FtM-38CM

DORADO CUSTOM BOATS, LLC,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Dorado Custom Boats, LLC’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) filed on February 13, 2018. Plaintiff Reliable Marine Towing
and Salvage, LLC filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 19) on February 26, 2018. This
matter is ripe for review.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract action stemming from the salvage of a sunken vessel.
(Doc. 1). Michael Boesch, Dorado’s owner, placed a distress call to Reliable requesting
the salvage of a sunken vessel. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 5, 7). Reliable agreed and dispatched a
rescue crew. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 9). Dorado’s “captain/agent” signed a contract for salvage
services with Reliable. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 14). Over the course of several hours, Reliable

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites.
These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked
documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or
products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to
some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

successfully raised and refloated the vessel. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 10, 13). Afterward, Reliable
requested payment for its services, but Dorado refused to pay. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 18, 20). As
a result, Reliable sued Dorado for breach of the salvage contract. (Doc. 1).
Now, Dorado moves to dismiss the Complaint or, in the alternative, moves for a
more definite statement. (Doc. 18). Reliable opposes the Motion. (Doc. 19). After careful
consideration, the Court denies Dorado’s Motion for the reasons stated below.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
To survive a motion to dismiss, “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) (internal quotations omitted). This standard requires a plaintiff
to plead sufficient “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. But this standard does “not
require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim that
is plausible on its face.” Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Against
that backdrop, the Court turns to the arguments.
DISCUSSION
To begin, the Court will address Dorado’s dismissal arguments. Dorado argues
that Reliable’s salvage contract claim fails because Reliable does not identify the
contract’s signee or when the contract was signed. (Doc. 18 at 2-3). In response,
Reliable argues it has pled sufficient facts to state a claim for relief. (Doc. 19). The Court
agrees.
At this stage, the specificity requested by Dorado is simply not required. See Bell
A. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570. (finding that a complaint only needs “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”). In fact, to plead a salvage contract claim, a

2

party must only allege the “existence of a valid contract, a material breach, and
damages.” Kol B’seder, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London subscribing to
Certificate No.154766 under Contract No. B0621MASRSWV15BND, 261 F. Supp. 3d
1257, 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2017); see also Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411
F.3d 1242, 1249 (11th Cir. 2005). Here, Reliable pled that Boesch requested salvage
services, Reliable agreed to provide salvage services and dispatched a rescue crew,
Dorado’s “agent/captain” entered into a salvage contract with Reliable, Reliable’s crew
raised the sunken vessel, and Dorado refused to pay for the salvage operation. (Doc. 1
at ¶¶ 8-10, 14-15, 20). This is sufficient. Thus, Dorado’s request for dismissal is denied.
Next, Dorado requests a more definite statement for the same reasons outlined
above. (Doc. 18). Generally, courts grant this type of motion when a complaint is so
ambiguous that a party cannot form a responsive pleading. See Royal Shell Vacations,
Inc. v. Scheyndel, 233 F.R.D. 629, 630 (M.D. Fla. 2005). Reliable’s Complaint is neither
vague nor ambiguous. Therefore, the Court denies Dorado’s alternate request as well.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant Dorado Custom Boats, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 26th day of March, 2018.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3