Maryland Casualty Company v. Employment Partners, Inc.
Filing
30
ORDER: Defendant Employment Partners Inc.'s Motion to Strike Plaintiff, Maryland Casualty Company's Claims for Attorneys' Fees, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law 25 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/11/2014. (AKH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:14-cv-1912-T-33MAP
EMPLOYMENT PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant
Employment Partners, Inc.’s (EPI) Motion to Strike Claims for
Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. # 25), filed on November 26, 2014.
Plaintiff Maryland Casualty Company (MCC) filed its response
in opposition on December 10, 2014. (Doc. # 29). For the
reasons stated below, the Motion is denied.
I.
Background
MCC initiated this action against EPI on August 8, 2014,
alleging causes of action for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and account stated. (Doc. # 1). MCC contends that
it “issued a policy of workers’ compensation insurance to EPI
under Policy No. WC 04177632-00 for the effective dates of
May 28, 2010, to May 28, 2011 (the ‘Policy’).” (Id. at 2).
MCC states that “[p]ursuant to the terms of the Policy, the
initial premiums were based on information submitted by EPI
and/or its insurance broker regarding EPI’s estimated payroll
for the effective dates of coverage.” (Id.). According to
MCC, EPI made payments to MCC in the amount of $33,636.34.
(Id.). MCC contends that EPI is indebted to MCC in the amount
of $132,743.66 for unpaid premiums. (Id. at 3). However, MCC
suggests that “EPI has failed, refused, and continues to
refuse to pay the balance due and owing to MCC, thereby
resulting in damages to MCC. . . .” (Id.).
On October 24, 2014, EPI filed a Motion to Dismiss, which
was granted in part and denied in part by this Court on
November 7, 2014. (Doc. ## 12, 22). Thereafter, MCC filed its
Amended Complaint on November 24, 2014. (Doc. # 24). EPI filed
its Answer and Affirmative Defenses and the present Motion to
Strike on November 26, 2014. (Doc. ## 26, 25).
II. Legal Standard
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides:
The
court
may
strike
from
a
pleading
an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
or scandalous matter. The court may act: (1) on its
own; or (2) on motion made by a party either before
responding to the pleading or, if a response is not
allowed, within 21 days after being served with the
pleading.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
2
Motions
to
strike
are
considered
“drastic”
and
are
disfavored by the courts. Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs.
E.,
LLC,
211
F.
Supp.
2d
1345,
1348
(M.D.
Fla.
2002).
Generally, “a court will not exercise its discretion under
the rule to strike a pleading unless the matter sought to be
omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may
confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.” Reyher
v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 574, 576 (M.D.
Fla. 1995).
III. Analysis
EPI contends that “[b]ecause [MCC] has failed to allege
any legally cognizable basis for the recovery of attorneys’
fees in this matter, [MCC’s] claims for attorneys’ fees in
the prayer for relief under Count I, Count II, and Count III
of the Amended Complaint should be stricken.” (See Doc. #
25). To that end, EPI argues that MCC fails to allege any
statutory or contractual basis for the recovery of attorneys’
fees and is unable to do so because there is no viable basis
for a recovery of attorneys’ fees. (Id.).
MCC counters that “recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs
by the prevailing party in an action is allowed when provided
for by statute or contract. [However,] Florida law is equally
clear that claims for attorney’s fees and costs do not need
3
to
plead
a
specific
statutory
or
contractual
basis
for
recovery.” (Doc. # 29). Therefore, it is MCC’s position that
“MCC should not be precluded from preserving its right and
ability to seek attorney’s fees and costs [at] the initial
stages of this matter as such a decision would unfairly
prejudice MCC and embolden EPI . . . to continue filing
frivolous motions in an effort to needlessly increase the
cost of litigation.” (Id. at 4).
Upon a review of the allegations contained in the Amended
Complaint, the Court notes that MCC has failed to allege a
statutory or contractual basis entitling it to an award of
attorneys’ fees and costs. (See Doc. # 24). However, EPI has
also failed to provide case law supporting its proposition
that MCC’s prayer for relief of attorneys’ fees should be
stricken solely on the basis that a statutory or contractual
basis is not alleged in the Amended Complaint. Although EPI
correctly
sets
forth
the
standard
regarding
entitlement,
justification, and recovery of attorneys’ fees, EPI has not
established a connection between the case law provided and
its position requesting the relief to be stricken.
Therefore, this Court rejects EPI’s argument that MCC’s
Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently plead a claim for
attorneys’ fees. In Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371, 378
4
(Fla. 2002), the court held “that the specific statutory or
contractual basis for a claim for attorney's fees need not be
specifically pled, and that failure to plead the basis of
such a claim will not result in waiver of the claim.” Parker
v. Bd. of Trustees of City Pension Fund for Firefighters &
Police Officers in City of Tampa, No. SC13-890, 2014 WL
5365843, *5 (Fla. 2014). The court explained “that merely
pleading a claim for attorney's fees is sufficient to notify
the opposing party and allow it to consider the claim in a
decision
on
whether
to
proceed.”
Id.
at
377–78
(citing
Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835, 837 (Fla. 1991)). This
case is in its infancy and damages considerations are better
suited for a later stage of these proceedings. Therefore, as
the
claim
for
attorneys’
fees
was
pled
with
sufficient
specificity, at this juncture, to put EPI on notice, this
Motion is denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant Employment Partners Inc.’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff, Maryland Casualty Company’s Claims for Attorneys’
Fees, With Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. # 25) is
DENIED.
5
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
11th day of December, 2014.
Copies: All Counsel of Record
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?