Garcia v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

Filing 36

ORDER Denying As Moot In Part And Granting In Part 17 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice 14 Amended Complaint, filed by Scottsdale Insurance Company., Scottsdale Insurance Company response due 1/21/2019. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 1/14/2019. See attached document for full details. (cds)

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Ricardo Garcia, Plaintiff,
v.
Scottsdale Insurance Company,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 18-20509-Civ-Scola
)
)
Order

Plaintiff Ricardo Garcia complains that Defendant Scottsdale Insurance
Company has failed to cover the entirety of his insurance claim for water damage
sustained to his Miami residence. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 15, 20; ECF No. 14, 2–3.) In
his initial complaint, Garcia alleged four counts: (1) claiming Scottsdale
breached the parties’ contract; (2) seeking declaratory relief; (3) alleging
Scottsdale violated Florida Statutes section 624.155; and (4) petitioning for
mediation. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1, 4–16.) Scottsdale moved to dismiss the first
three counts of this initial complaint, arguing that Garcia failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. In granting the motion, the Court dismissed
Garcia’s statutory claim with prejudice but granted Garcia leave to “amend his
complaint, consistent with the [Court’s order], to properly state a claim for
breach of contract as well as . . . for a declaratory judgment.” (Order Granting
Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 13, 5.)
In response, Garcia dropped his claim for declaratory relief, restated his
claims for breach of contract (count one) and seeking mediation (count two) and
then added the following four new claims: negligent misrepresentation (count
three); fraudulent inducement (count four); estoppel (count five); and fraud
(count six). Garcia’s addition of the new counts was improper. “[W]hen a court
rules on a 12(b)(6) motion and allows the plaintiff to file an amended complaint,
the plaintiff’s right to amend is circumscribed by the court’s order.” Waxman v.
Eq. Life Assurance Socy. of the United States, 08-60657-CIV, 2009 WL 10701022,
at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2009) (Ryskamp, J.). That is, “the plaintiff does not
have a right as a matter of course to assert amendments beyond the scope of the
court’s order.” Id. If Garcia had wanted to add new claims to his complaint, “he
needed first to seek leave of court in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2).” Id. The Court thus strikes counts three, four, five, and six
from the amended complaint.
In the meantime, Scottsdale has moved to dismiss these four claims as
well. (Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 17.) Scottsdale’s arguments are well taken. However,

because the Court strikes those counts, as set forth above, Scottsdale’s motion
to dismiss is denied as moot. Additionally, however, Scottsdale also asks the
Court to strike from Garcia’s amended complaint what it alleges are scandalous,
immaterial, and impertinent allegations. (Def.’s Mot. at 6–7.) In particular,
Scottsdale takes issue with the following complaint statements: “Scottsdale also
made blatant misrepresentations to the Court by claiming that the initial
Complaint did not give Defendant ample notice of what this claim is about” (Am.
Compl. at ¶ 37); and “Scottsdale is well[]aware of the nature of this claim and it
was inappropriate and improper for Defendant to represent to this Honorable
Court that it does not know what the claim is about” (id. at ¶ 42). These
allegations have “no possible relationship to the controversy” set forth in the
complaint; have “no value in developing the issues of the case”; and are
otherwise “irrelevant to the action.” Blake v. Batmasian, 318 F.R.D. 698, 701,
700 nn. 2–3 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (Marra, J.). As such, the Court, in its discretion,
strikes both paragraphs 37 and 42 from the amended complaint.
As set forth above, the Court strikes counts three through six and
paragraphs 37 and 42 of the amended complaint. As such, the Court denies
Scottsdale’s motion as moot, in part, and grants it in part. (ECF No. 17.)
Scottsdale must respond to the amended complaint on or before January 21,
2019.
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on January 14, 2019.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge