United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
SHERIPOLSTERCHAPPEW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Red Bull
Distribution Company, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint (Doc. 15). Plaintiff Nelson Misson filed a Response
in Opposition (Doc. 18). This Motion is ripe for review.
case stems from a motor vehicle accident. (Doc. 13 at ¶
1). Jesse Faulkner rear-ended Misson while driving a truck
owned by Red Bull. (Doc. 13 at ¶¶ 4-5, 7). Misson
sued Red Bull under Florida's dangerous instrumentality
doctrine for damages sustained in the accident. (Doc. 13).
Now, Red Bull moves to dismiss Misson's Amended Complaint
for failure to state a claim or seeks a more definite
statement. (Doc. 15). Red Bull also moves to strike
Misson's claim for prejudgment interest. (Doc. 15). For
the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Red Bull's
request to strike, but denies the Motion in all other
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the reviewing court must
accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and
view them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). But this standard of review does not permit all
pleadings adorned with facts to survive. The Supreme Court
requires that a district court dismiss a claim when a party
fails to plead facts that make the claim facially plausible.
See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when the court
can draw a reasonable inference, based on the facts pled,
that the opposing party is liable for the alleged misconduct.
See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This
plausibility standard requires “more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
Bull argues the Amended Complaint is deficient because there
are no allegations it was negligent. (Doc. 15 at 3). This
argument is unpersuasive. Florida's dangerous
instrumentality doctrine “imposes strict vicarious
liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily
entrusts the motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent
operation causes damage to another.” Est. of
Villanueva ex rel. Villanueva v. Youngblood, 927 So.2d
955, 957 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006). Unlike Red Bull's position,
the doctrine does not require direct negligence allegations
against a vehicle's owner. See Id. And
the allegations in the Amended Complaint are sufficient to
state a claim. Misson pled that Faulkner was negligent in his
operation of the truck, Red Bull owned the truck, and Red
Bull consented to Faulkner's use. (Doc. 13 at
¶¶ 10-15). Red Bull's Motion to Dismiss is
similar vein, Red Bull moves for a more definite statement
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Rule 12(e)
allows a party to request a more definite statement when a
pleading is “so vague or ambiguous that the party
cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(e). That is simply not the case here. The facts, while
simply pled, are neither vague nor ambiguous.
Red Bull requests the Court strike Misson's claim for
prejudgment interest. (Doc. 15 at 4). Misson does not oppose
Red Bull's request. (Doc. 18). Because Florida does not
generally allow prejudgment interest in a tort case and
Misson does not object to Red Bull's position, the Court
will strike Misson's claim for prejudgment interest.
See Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier Inc., 472
F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir. 2006).
it is now
Red Bull Distribution Company, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint (Doc. 15) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
Plaintiff Mission's claim for prejudgment interest is
stricken from the Amended Complaint.
Defendant Red Bull Distribution Company, Inc.'s Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint is denied in all other respects.