United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
RELIABLE MARINE TOWING AND SALVAGE LLC, Successor in interest to Cheryl Smith, Plaintiff,
DORADO CUSTOM BOATS, LLC, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER 
SHERIPOLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Dorado Custom
Boats, LLC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) filed on
February 13, 2018. Plaintiff Reliable Marine Towing and
Salvage, LLC filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 19) on
February 26, 2018. This matter is ripe for review.
a breach of contract action stemming from the salvage of a
sunken vessel. (Doc. 1). Michael Boesch, Dorado's owner,
placed a distress call to Reliable requesting the salvage of
a sunken vessel. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 5, 7). Reliable
agreed and dispatched a rescue crew. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 9).
Dorado's “captain/agent” signed a contract
for salvage services with Reliable. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 14).
Over the course of several hours, Reliable successfully
raised and refloated the vessel. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 10,
13). Afterward, Reliable requested payment for its services,
but Dorado refused to pay. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 18, 20).
As a result, Reliable sued Dorado for breach of the salvage
contract. (Doc. 1).
Dorado moves to dismiss the Complaint or, in the alternative,
moves for a more definite statement. (Doc. 18). Reliable
opposes the Motion. (Doc. 19). After careful consideration,
the Court denies Dorado's Motion for the reasons stated
survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations
omitted). This standard requires a plaintiff to plead
sufficient “factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. But this
standard does “not require heightened fact pleading of
specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim that is
plausible on its face.” Bell A. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Against that
backdrop, the Court turns to the arguments.
begin, the Court will address Dorado's dismissal
arguments. Dorado argues that Reliable's salvage contract
claim fails because Reliable does not identify the
contract's signee or when the contract was signed.
(Doc. 18 at 2-3). In response, Reliable argues it
has pled sufficient facts to state a claim for relief. (Doc.
19). The Court agrees.
stage, the specificity requested by Dorado is simply not
required. See Bell A. Corp., 550 U.S. at
570. (finding that a complaint only needs
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.”). In fact, to plead a salvage
contract claim, a party must only allege the “existence
of a valid contract, a material breach, and damages.”
Kol B'seder, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's of London subscribing to Certificate
No.154766 under Contract No. B0621MASRSWV15BND,
261 F.Supp.3d 1257, 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2017); see also
Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d
1242, 1249 (11th Cir. 2005). Here, Reliable pled that Boesch
requested salvage services, Reliable agreed to provide
salvage services and dispatched a rescue crew, Dorado's
“agent/captain” entered into a salvage contract
with Reliable, Reliable's crew raised the sunken vessel,
and Dorado refused to pay for the salvage operation. (Doc. 1
at ¶¶ 8-10, 14-15, 20). This is
sufficient. Thus, Dorado's request for dismissal is
Dorado requests a more definite statement for the same
reasons outlined above. (Doc. 18). Generally, courts grant
this type of motion when a complaint is so ambiguous that a
party cannot form a responsive pleading. See
Royal Shell Vacations, Inc. v. Scheyndel, 233 F.R.D.
629, 630 (M.D. Fla. 2005). Reliable's Complaint
is neither vague nor ambiguous. Therefore, the Court denies
Dorado's alternate request as well.
it is now
Dorado Custom Boats, LLC's Motion to Dismiss ( ...