Logelin v. Florida Marine Group, Inc.

Filing 20

OPINION AND ORDER denying 15 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/15/2023. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DAVID LOGELIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

2:23-cv-720-JES-NPM

FLORIDA MARINE GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #15) filed on October 24, 2023.

Plaintiff

filed a Response in Opposition to Motion (Doc. #19) on November
14, 2023.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must
accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take
them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89 (2007), but “[l]egal conclusions without adequate
factual support are entitled to no assumption of truth,” Mamani v.
Berzain, 654 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to plausibly state
a claim with sufficient facts and that plaintiff is imposing a

heightened

duty

upon

defendant

because

“Plaintiff’s

legal

conclusion that Defendant had a duty to make sure the vessel was
properly moored or relocated is a heightened duty.

Defendant only

had a duty to use reasonable care under the circumstances in
preparing for Hurricane Ian.”

(Doc. #15, p. 6.)

disagrees that it is imposing a heightened duty.

Plaintiff

“The plaintiff

alleged the defendant had the duty to use reasonable care, and
then the plaintiff listed factually how it is alleged that the
defendant breached that duty. Just because the defendant disagrees
with what actions would be considered ‘reasonable care under the
circumstances’

does

not

mean

allegations are conclusory.”

that

the

plaintiff’s

factual

(Doc. #19, p. 4.)

According to the Complaint (Doc. #1), plaintiff resided in a
home located on a canal in St. James City, Florida with a dock and
lanai in September 2022.

Defendant Florida Marine Group, Inc.

owned a vessel named LOSING INTEREST, a 2015 Sea Ray weighing over
40 gross tons.
City,

Florida,

Defendant moored the vessel on a canal in St. James
in

September

2022,

during

the

dates

that

the

National Weather Service was forecasting Tropical Storm Ian to
become a hurricane.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant had a duty

to use reasonable care when preparing the vessel to ride out the
hurricane at the dock where it was moored, including moving it if
it could not safely be moored at its location.

Plaintiff alleges

that defendant failed to take the necessary action to secure the

2

vessel before Hurricane Ian made landfall and the vessel broke
loose from its mooring line and came adrift in the canal behind
plaintiff’s home.

The drifting vessel collided into plaintiff’s

boat, dock, and lanai causing damage.

Plaintiff alleges that

defendant was negligent and breached its duty to secure the vessel
LOSING INTEREST.
Specifically, defendant did not have its boat safely
secured because the boat did not have the proper mooring
lines rigged and anchors set out to have a boat of that
size and weight properly tied off in light of the
forecasted storm. The LOSING INTEREST was seen to be
floating adrift down the canal on which plaintiff’s home
was located with a piling still secured to a mooring
line (a spring line) that was obviously too short to
allow for any rise in water that was forecasted. This
demonstrates that the LOSING INTEREST was not properly
secured because as the water rose the weight of the boat
simply pulled the pole that the mooring line was attached
to up out of the bottom. If proper spring lines and other
mooring lines had been set there would have been enough
slack and lead of the line to allow the boat to float up
at its dock.
(Doc. #1, ¶ 9.)

As a direct and proximate result of the negligence

of defendant, plaintiff sustained damages totaling $82,785.55.
The parties both cite Chaparro and agree 1 that to properly
plead a claim for negligence under maritime law, plaintiff must
allege that “(1) the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff
from a particular injury; (2) the defendant breached that duty;
(3) the breach actually and proximately caused the plaintiff's

1

(Doc. #15, p. 4; Doc. #19, p. 2.)

3

injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual harm.”

Chaparro v.

Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1336 (11th Cir. 2012) (citations
omitted).

The Court finds sufficient facts placing defendant on

notice

the

of

claim

against

it,

including

how

its

duty

was

breached, and a corresponding harm.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #15) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
November 2023.

Copies:
Parties of record

4

15th

day of