Dear v. Q Club Hotel, LLC

Filing 21

ORDER granting 10 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 7/14/2015. (ns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-60474-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
GARY DEAR, on his own behalf and on behalf
of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
Q CLUB HOTEL, LLC,
Defendant.
/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II OF THE COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count II of
Plaintiff's Complaint [DE 10]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record in this
case, and is otherwise advised in the premises. For the reasons discussed herein, the
Court will grant the Motion and will dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint.
I.

BACKGROUND
This suit involves a dispute among owners of a beachfront hotel and

condominium units located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Defendant Q Club Hotel, LLC
("Q Club") owns and manages the Hilton Fort Lauderdale Beach Resort hotel (the
"Hotel"). Compl. ¶ 15.1 The Hotel is located in a building that also houses 333
residential condominium units ("Residences"). Id. ¶ 14. A Declaration of Club Resort
and Residences Condominium ("Condo Declaration") applies to and governs the
Residences. Id. ¶ 17 & ex. A. The Condo Declaration binds not only the owners of the
1

For the purpose of resolving the Motion, the Court accepts as true the facts
alleged in the Complaint. See Nat'l Ass'n of Bds. of Pharmacy v. Bd. of Regents, 633
F.3d 1297, 1301 n.3 (11th Cir. 2011).

Residences, but also Q Club. Id. Plaintiff Gary Dear owns one of the Residences. Id.
¶ 35.
The Hotel and owners of the Residences share use of certain common elements,
such as a fitness center and a parking garage. Id. ¶ 24. The Condo Declaration refers to
these common elements as "Shared Components." Id. ¶¶ 23–24. The Q Club owns and
controls the Shared Components. Id. ¶ 23. The Condo Declaration requires owners of
the Residences to reimburse the Q Club for certain "Shared Costs" associated with the
Shared Components. Id. ¶¶ 28–31. The Condo Declaration also requires Q Club to
maintain a roster of the Residences and applicable charges, and to maintain records
reflecting receipts, expenditures, and budgets relating to the Shared Components. Id.
¶¶ 33–34. These records are to be made available for inspection by any owner of a
Residence. Id.
Dear alleges that Q Club has failed to maintain the roster and records required
by the Condo Declaration. Id. ¶ 44. Dear also contends that Q Club has regularly and
systematically charged inflated Shared Costs to owners of the Residences. Id. ¶¶ 45–
49. Dear has asserted a claim for breach of contract against Q Club on the basis of its
alleged failures to live up to its obligations under the Condo Declaration. Id. ¶¶ 61–69.
Dear has also asserted a claim titled "Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," seeking a
declaration of the parties' rights and obligations under the Condo Declaration, together
with an injunction prohibiting Q Club from violating the Condo Declaration in the future.
Id. ¶¶ 70–81. In the Motion now before the Court, Q Club challenges the cause of action
for declaratory and injunctive relief as failing to state a claim.

2

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court shall grant a motion to dismiss where the factual

allegations of the complaint cannot support the asserted cause of action. Glover v.
Liggett Group, Inc., 459 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). "Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . ."
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The allegations must give a
defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claims and the grounds upon which they rest. Id.
Thus, 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)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
A complaint must be liberally construed, assuming the facts alleged therein as
true and drawing all reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint should not be dismissed simply because the
court is doubtful that the plaintiff will be able to prove all of the necessary factual
allegations. Id. A well-pled complaint will survive a motion to dismiss "even if it appears
that a recovery is very remote and unlikely." Id. at 556 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Nevertheless, a plaintiff must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555.
III. DISCUSSION
In the Motion, Q Club argues that Dear's cause of action for declaratory judgment
fails to allege a live controversy in need of a declaration from the Court. Q Club also
contends that Dear has failed to allege the elements of a claim for injunctive relief. The
Court agrees with Q Club on each point, thus will dismiss the claim for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief.
3

A plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment under the Federal Declaratory
Judgment Act must premise his claim upon a "substantial controversy, between parties
having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the
issuance of a declaratory judgment." GTE Directories Publ'g Corp. v. Trimen Am., Inc.,
67 F.3d 1563, 1567 (11th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).2 In this case,
Dear asserts that the controversy to be resolved by declaratory judgment is his doubt as
to each party's rights and obligations under the Condo Declaration. Compl. ¶¶ 76–77.
However, the Complaint's factual allegations reflect that Dear does not actually doubt
each party's rights and obligations. Instead, he asserts that the Condo Declaration's
terms are clear, and that Q Club has breached those terms. Id. ¶¶ 72–75, 79. Notably,
these facts are identical to the facts underlying Dear's claim for breach of contract. See
id. ¶¶ 61–69.
The Declaratory Judgment Act confers discretion on the courts to issue a
declaratory judgment. However, "it does not impose a duty to do so." Ameritas Variable
Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Where a
party has properly raised an issue in other counts of its pleadings, district courts
exercising their discretion will reject claims for declaratory relief addressing that same
2

The parties disagree over whether the Federal or Florida Declaratory Judgment
Act applies in this case, which is founded upon diversity jurisdiction. The Court
recognizes that the question of whether Federal or Florida law applies under similar
circumstances has given rise to inconsistent decisions from district courts within Florida.
However, this Court has previously concluded that Florida's Declaratory Judgment Act
is a procedural statute, thus the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act governs claims for
declaratory judgment in diversity actions, such as the case at bar. See Cypress Chase
Condo. Ass'n "A" v. QBE Ins. Corp., No. 10-61987, 2011 WL 1544860 at *2 (S.D. Fla.
Apr. 15, 2011). Dear has not persuaded the Court that it should revisit this
determination. Accord Coccaro v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 14-80461, 2015 WL
3669399 at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2015) (construing claim under Florida Declaratory
Judgment Act as one under Federal Declaratory Judgment Act).

4

issue. See, e.g., Selby v. Goodman Mfg. Co., LP, No. 13-2162, 2014 WL 2740317 at *7
(N.D. Ala. June 17, 2014); Perret v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d
1333, 1346–47 (S.D. Fla. 2012); Eisenberg v. Standard Ins. Co., No. 09-80199, 2009
WL 3667086 at *2–3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2009).
In the instant case, Dear's claim for declaratory judgment is duplicative of his
claim for breach of contract. The two claims rest upon the same allegations of Q Club's
failure to live up to its obligations under the Condo Declaration. A resolution of Count I
will require an interpretation of the Condo Declaration similar to that sought in Count II.
The Court's interpretation of the Condo Declaration in connection with Count I will not
only impact Q Club's potential liability in this action, but also will bind the parties in any
subsequent suit. See Eisenberg, 2009 WL 3667086 at *3. Accordingly, Dear's claim for
declaratory judgment is subsumed by his claim for breach of contract, and will be
dismissed on that basis. See Perret, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 1346–47.
The Court also rejects Count II to the extent it seeks injunctive relief. Under
Florida law, a party seeking a permanent injunction must plead and prove "a clear legal
right, the inadequacy of a remedy at law, and that an irreparable injury will occur if such
relief is not granted." Alley v. Les Chateaux Condo. Ass'n, Inc., No. 10-760, 2010 WL
4739508 at *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2010) (citing E. Fed. Corp. v. State Office Supply Co.,
646 So. 2d 737, 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). Notably, where money damages will
adequately compensate a plaintiff for his alleged harms, the plaintiff cannot establish
the inadequacy of a remedy at law or that irreparable injury will occur absent an
injunction. B.G.H. Ins. Syndicate, Inc. v. Presidential Fire & Cas. Co., 549 So. 2d 197,

5

198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Supreme Serv. Station Corp. v. Telecredit Serv. Ctr., Inc., 424
So. 2d 844, 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (per curiam).
In this case, Q Club contends that Dear has alleged no breach of the Condo
Declaration that could not be remedied by money damages, thus his claim must fail.
DE 10 at 5. The Court agrees with Q Club on this point, and notes more broadly that
Dear has entirely failed to allege in his Complaint that his remedies at law are
inadequate or that he would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. See Compl.
¶¶ 35–51, 70–81. Under these circumstances, Dear has failed to state a claim for
injunctive relief. See, e.g., Cnty. of Monroe, Fla. v. Priceline.com, Inc., No. 09-10004,
2009 WL 4890664 at *6 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2009).
In opposition to the Motion, Dear does not directly address his failure to plead
these elements of a claim for injunctive relief, and instead asserts conclusorily and
incorrectly that "Q Club fails to cite the applicable elements for . . . injunctive relief and
apply the facts alleged to those elements." DE 19 at 16. These unsupported contentions
do not salvage his insufficiently pled request for injunctive relief. Accordingly, that part of
Count II seeking injunctive relief will be dismissed. It is thereupon
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count II of
Plaintiff's Complaint [DE 10] is GRANTED. Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint, seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief, is DISMISSED.

6

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 14th day of July, 2015.

Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF

7