United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants'
ADJUSTERMAN, LLC, and MICHAEL E. KLAVAN (collectively
“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint and or Motion for a More Definite
Statement, ECF No.  (“Motion”). The Court has
carefully reviewed the Motion, all opposing and supporting
materials, the record in this case and the applicable law,
and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in
Mathews (“Plaintiff”) originally filed this
action in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida. See ECF No. [1-1]. Thereafter,
Defendants removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 and filed this Motion. ECF Nos.  and
. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff
entered into a written Public Adjuster Apprentice Contract
(“contract”) with Adjusterman, LLC
(“Adjusterman”) for employment. ECF No. [1-1] at
¶ 5. After they executed the contract, Plaintiff claims
the parties agreed to orally amend the contract, requiring
that “she would be paid 20% of all collections on all
matters that she worked upon.” ECF No. [1-1] at ¶
6. Plaintiff further alleges she worked in excess of forty
hours per week and has not been compensated at all for her
on these allegations, the Amended Complaint alleges
“Breach of Written Contract (as Amended)” against
Adjusterman in Count I, unjust enrichment against Adjusterman
in Count II, violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act in
Count III, and violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) in Count IV. See ECF No. [1-1].
In the Motion, Defendants seek dismissal of all claims in the
Amended Complaint or alternatively a more definite statement.
ECF No. . Plaintiff's Response in opposition and
Defendants' Reply timely followed. ECF Nos.  and
. The Motion is now ripe for review.
Motion to Dismiss
pleading in a civil action 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
accusation”). Nor can a complaint rest on
“‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of
‘further factual enhancement.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 557 (alteration in original)).
reviewing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a court, as a general
rule, must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true and
evaluate all plausible inferences derived from those facts in
favor of the plaintiff. See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
of Fla. v. S. Everglades Restoration Alliance, 304 F.3d
1076, 1084 (11th Cir. 2002); AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co.
v. Infinity Fin. Grp., LLC, 608 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1353
(S.D. Fla. 2009). However, this tenet does not apply to legal
conclusions, and courts “are not bound to accept as
true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Thaeter v. Palm Beach Cty.
Sheriff's Office, 449 F.3d 1342, 1352 (11th Cir.
2006). Moreover, “courts may infer from the factual
allegations in the complaint ‘obvious alternative
explanations, ' which suggest lawful conduct rather than
the unlawful conduct the plaintiff would ask the court to
infer.” Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp.,
605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 682). 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);
Maxcess, Inc. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 433 F.3d 1337,
1340 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[A] document outside the four
corners of the complaint may still be considered if it is
central to the plaintiff's claims and is undisputed in
terms of authenticity.”) (citing Horsley v.
Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1135 (11th Cir. 2002)).
Motion for a More Definite Statement
Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a
party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to
which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague
or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a
response.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Since courts have
liberally construed the pleading standard under Rule 8(a),
“a short and plain statement” will be enough,
unless upon motion it is shown that the pleading “is so
ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably” respond.
Betancourt v. Marine Cargo Mgm't, Inc., 930
F.Supp. 606, 608 (S.D. Fla. 1996). “Most courts
disfavor the use of Rule 12(e), ” and “motions
for a more definite statement should not be used as a means
of discovery.” Royal Shell Vacations, Inc. v.
Scheyndel, 233 F.R.D 629, 630 (M.D. Fla. 2005).
Breach of Contract
dismissal of Plaintiff's breach of contract claim,
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claim fails to properly
plead that an oral modification to the written contract
occurred. ECF Nos.  and . To state a breach
of contract claim, a plaintiff must plead the existence of a
contract, a material breach, and damages. Vega v.
T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1272 (11th Cir.
2009). In this case, Plaintiff indeed pled the existence of a
written contract, but she also pled the existence of an oral
modification to that same written contract. See ECF
No. [1-1] at ¶ 6. It is the latter that she claims was
breached. Id. at ...