Imaflex, Inc. v. Cutrale Farms, Inc.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: September 2, 2021
• Docket: 8:21-cv-01341
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

IMAFLEX, INC. d/b/a CANSLIT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:21-cv-1341-KKM-CPT

CUTRALE FARMS, INC.,

Defendant. ___________________________________

ORDER In this claim regarding purchase orders for agricultural films, Defendant Cutrale Farms, Inc. moves to dismiss Counts I and IV of Plaintiff Imaflex’s Complaint. (Doc. 18.) Imaflex brings claims for breach of contract (Count I), account stated (Count II), open account (Count III), and quantum meruit (Count IV) based on allegations that Cutrale failed to pay invoices for delivered goods. (Doc. 2.) Cutrale first argues that Counts I and IV fail to state plausible claims for relief because they are internally inconsistent. (Doc. 18 at 4–5.) But Imaflex is entitled to plead separate claims of relief in the alternative, even if they are inconsistent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2) (“A party may state as many claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.”); , 556 F.3d 1260, 1273–74 (11th Cir. 2009) (concluding complaint was not subject to dismissal where allegations were inconsistent even where both

theories of liability could not simultaneously be valid). Thus, this argument is not persuasive. Cutrale also argues that Imaflex fails to state a plausible claim for relief for quantum

meruit in Count IV because it incorporated paragraph 91 of the Complaint, which alleges that a binding contract exists between the parties. (Doc. 18 at 5.) Quantum meruit is a legal doctrine that imposes liability in the of a valid contract.

, 956 So. 2d 1222, 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “[A] plaintiff cannot pursue an equitable theory, such as unjust enrichment or quantum meruit, to prove entitlement to relief if an express contract exists.” While Imaflex is entitled to plead

quantum meruit in the alternative, the fact that Count IV contains an allegation (by incorporation) of the existence of a contract makes its claim untenable as a matter of law. , 2019 WL 12304381, at *6 & n.8 (M.D. Fla.

Feb. 8, 2019) (Moody, J.) (“The practice of reincorporating all factual allegations into every count usually does not result in a pleading defect warranting a claim’s dismissal, but the practice has that effect in this case.”). If Imaflex wishes to remedy this defect, it need only

be more selective in its incorporation of general allegations.

1 Cutrale incorrectly references paragraph 10 of the Complaint in its motion. (Doc. 18 ¶ 10.) Accordingly, Cutrale’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Count IV is dismissed. Imaflex may file an amended complaint no later than September 16, 2021. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 2, 2021.

ate Auli Mizelle United States District Judge