Cooseman's Miami, Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Company

Filing 26

ORDER granting 19 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 1/18/2023. See attached document for full details. (jas)

Case 1:22-cv-23264-BB Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 22-cv-23264-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
COOSEMAN’S MIAMI, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Aspen Specialty Insurance Company’s
Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, ECF No. [19] (“Motion”). Plaintiff
filed a Response, ECF No. [24], to which Defendant filed a Reply, ECF No. [25]. The Court has
considered the Motion, the Response, the Reply, the record, the applicable law, and is otherwise
fully advised. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion is granted.
I.

BACKGROUND
This is an insurance dispute regarding to damages to Plaintiff’s property allegedly caused

by Hurricane Irma in 2017. See Amended Complaint, ECF No. [14]. The operative Amended
Complaint contains two Counts: Breach of Contract (Count I) and Declaratory Judgment (Count
II). Id.
Defendant moves to dismiss Count II as duplicative of Count I. ECF No. [19]. Plaintiff
responds that it is permissible for a declaratory relief claim to be asserted in conjunction with a
breach of contract claim. ECF No. [24]. In Reply, Defendant reiterates that the declaratory

Case 1:22-cv-23264-BB Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-22075-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
judgment Count in this case is completely subsumed within the breach of contract Count, so it is
subject to dismissal. ECF No. [25] at 2.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A pleading 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). Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual
allegations,” it must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, (2007);
see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading standard
“demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”).
Additionally, a complaint may not rest on “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). “Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. If
the facts satisfy the elements of the claims asserted, a defendant’s motion to dismiss must be
denied. Id. at 556.
When reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court, as a general rule, accepts the plaintiff’s
allegations as true and evaluates all plausible inferences derived from those facts in favor of the
plaintiff. See Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012); AXA Equitable
Life Ins. Co. v. Infinity Fin. Grp., LLC, 608 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (“On a motion
to dismiss, the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all
facts alleged by the non-moving party are accepted as true.”). A court considering a Rule 12(b)
motion is generally limited to the facts contained in the complaint and attached exhibits, including
documents referred to in the complaint that are central to the claim. See Wilchombe v. TeeVee
Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 959 (11th Cir. 2009). While the Court is required to accept as true all

2

Case 1:22-cv-23264-BB Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-22075-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
allegations contained in the complaint, courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
III.

DISCUSSION
The Declaratory Judgment Act provides that a federal court “may declare the rights and

other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201. A district
court's ability to grant relief under the Act is permissive, and while the Act “gives the federal courts
competence to make a declaration of rights[,] it does not impose a duty to do so.” Ameritas
Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). The Court has
“exceptionally broad discretion in deciding whether to issue a declaratory judgment[.]” Otwell v.
Ala. Power Co., 747 F.3d 1275, 1280 (11th Cir. 2014). “If a district court, in the sound exercise of
its judgment, determines after a complaint is filed that a declaratory judgment will serve no useful
purpose, it cannot be incumbent upon that court to proceed to the merits before staying or
dismissing the action.” Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 288 (1995).
“Declaratory judgment claims that functionally seek adjudication on the merits of a breach
of contract claim are duplicative and cannot stand.” Mena Catering, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.,
512 F. Supp. 3d 1309, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (citing cases). “Declaratory judgment claims may
properly coexist with breach of contract claims when they provide the plaintiff a form of relief
unavailable under the breach of contract claim.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). “Such claims for
declaratory judgment must be forward-looking, rather than retrospective, as any retrospective
declaration would be equally solved by resolution of the breach of contract claim.” Id.
Here, Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint seeks damages due to Defendant’s alleged
failure to pay damages for Plaintiff’s property damage in accordance with Defendant’s insurance
policy. ECF No. [14] at 3-4. Count II seeks a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff’s property damage
“is covered under the Policy[.]” ECF No. [14] at 6. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff
3

Case 1:22-cv-23264-BB Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2023 Page 4 of 4
Case No. 22-cv-22075-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
cannot prevail on its breach of contract claim unless the Court determines that Plaintiff’s loss is
covered by the policy. Accordingly, “the declaratory judgment count would serve no useful
purpose because the issues will be resolved by another claim[.]” Organo Gold Int’l Inc. v. Aussie
Rules Marine Servs., Ltd., 416 F. Supp. 3d 1369, 1377 (S.D. Fla. 2019). In such circumstances,
dismissal of the duplicative declaratory judgment count is appropriate. Id. (citing cases dismissing
declaratory judgment claims that were duplicative of contract claims).
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [19], is GRANTED.
2. Count II of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, ECF No. [14], is DISMISSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 18, 2022.

Copies to:

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Counsel of Record

4