Welborn v. Jay Durga Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 62

ORDER granting 53 motion to dismiss. The Counterclaim (Doc. 52, pp. 11-13) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On or before January 21, 2017, Defendant may file an Amended Counterclaim. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 1/16/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLAND DIVISION
TERESA WELBORN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-1003-Orl-37KRS

MANOHAR JAIN; and USHA JAIN,
Defendants.
______________________________________
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following matters:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Or, Alternatively, Motion for
More Definite Statement (Doc. 53), filed December 13, 2016; and

(2)

Defendants Manohar Jain’s and Dr. Usha Jain’s Motion to Oppose the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Dismissal of the Counterclaims of the Defendants
(Doc. 54).
BACKGROUND

On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff Teresa Welborn (“Plaintiff”) filed an Amended
Complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) against pro se Defendants
Manohar Jain and Usha Jain (“Defendants”). (See Docs. 34, 37.) Defendants filed their
Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims on November 22, 2016 (Doc. 52,
pp. 11–13 (“Counterclaim”)), Plaintiff moved to dismiss or for a more definite statement
(Doc. 53 (“Motion”)), Defendant responded (Doc. 54 (“Response”)), and the matter is
now ripe for adjudication.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Counterclaimants must plead “a short and plain statement of [their] claim.” See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). They also must state their claim “in
numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). If a counterclaim does not comport with these pleading
requirements, or otherwise fails to state a plausible claim, the counter-defendant may
move to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall
Cnty. Gas. Dist., 992 F. 2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993). In determining whether a
counterclaim is plausible, the Court must accept the well-pled factual allegations as true;
however, this “tenet . . . is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
DISCUSSION
The Counterclaim consists of only two pages, three numbered paragraphs, and
five unnumbered paragraphs. The unnumbered paragraphs allege that Defendants seek
to assert claims for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty, and the Court should exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. (See Doc. 52, pp. 11–12.) The three
numbered paragraphs allege that:
1.

Defendants, sues [sic] the [P]laintiff for unauthorized
use of the 2nd room and non payment [sic] for the
room.

2.

Defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs sue the [P]laintiff for
use of the laundry of the hotel for her family’s personal
use.

3.

Defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs sue the [P]laintiff for
breach
of
fiduciary
duty
to
the

-2-

Defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs and conspiracy with
Brad Pinkerton in unlawfully renting the room without
paying the money to the Defendants/counterclaim
plaintiffs-criminal activity [sic].
(Id. at 13.) These allegations are entirely unclear and fall far short of minimum pleading
requirements. Hence the Counterclaim is due to be dismissed. 1
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims or, Alternatively, Motion
for More Definite Statement (Doc. 53) is GRANTED.

2.

The Counterclaim (Doc. 52, pp. 11–13) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

3.

On or before January 21, 2017, Defendant may file an Amended
Counterclaim that complies with the minimum pleading requirements
established in Rules 8(a), 8(d)(1), 9(b), and 10(b).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on January 16, 2017.

Copies:

The Counterclaim as currently presented is too unclear and confusing to permit fair
consideration of Plaintiff’s arguments that the Counterclaim is either unrelated to Plaintiff’s
FLSA claims or would predominate over such claims. (Doc. 53, pp. 2–5.)

1

-3-

Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties

-4-