United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
REYNOLDS VENTURES, INC. D/B/A WRIGHT WAY EMERGENCY SERVICES a/a/o Marram Corp., Plaintiff,
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
E. Steele, Judge
matter comes before the Court on review of defendant's
Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint and
Motion to Strike Demand for Attorney's Fees (Doc. #17)
filed on May 29, 2018. Plaintiff filed a Response in
Opposition (Doc. #20) on June 12, 2018.
initially filed this matter in the name of “The Wright
Way Emergency Water Removal, LLC/Reynolds Ventures, Inc.
a/a/o Marram Corp.” in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Charlotte County,
Florida. (Doc. #2.) On May 3, 2018, defendant Scottsdale
Insurance Company removed the matter to federal court on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. #1.) On May 15, 2018,
plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint revising its name in the
caption. (Doc. #10.) The plaintiff's name in the caption
now reads “Reynolds Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Wright Way
Emergency Services a/a/o Marram Corp.” (Id.)
Amended Complaint asserts that Marram Corp. purchased a
homeowner's insurance policy (the “Policy”)
from defendant to cover the property located at 630 Woodbury
Drive, Port Charlotte, FL 33954 (the “Property”).
(Id. ¶ 6.) The Policy provided insurance
coverage which included coverage for water damage.
(Id.) On August 1, 2017, the Policy was in full
force and effect. (Id. ¶ 7.)
August 1, 2017, the Property suffered damage by a water
event. (Id. ¶ 8.) After the water event, Marram
Corp. contracted with plaintiff to provide services to repair
the damage to the Property from the water event.
(Id. ¶ 9.) In connection with these services,
Marram Corp. agreed to allow the direct billing of the
services rendered by plaintiff to defendant and executed an
assignment of rights under the Policy to plaintiff.
(Id.) Defendant assigned claim number 01779012 to
the loss. (Id.) Plaintiff submitted bills and/or
estimates for the services provided at the Property to
defendant. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff has not been
paid or has been underpaid by defendant for these services.
filed a two-count complaint against defendant for breach of
contract and breach of contract with implied equitable
assignment of benefits arising out of the non-payment and/or
underpayment of the bills submitted to defendant relating to
the water event. (Doc. #2.) On May 15, 2018, plaintiff filed
an Amended Complaint, solely changing the name of the
plaintiff from “The Wright Way Emergency Water Removal
LLC/Reynolds Ventures, Inc., a/a/o Marram Corp.” to
“Reynolds Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Wright Way Emergency
Services a/a/o Marram Corp.” (Doc. #10.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint 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). This obligation “requires 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)
(citation omitted). To survive dismissal, the factual
allegations must be “plausible” and “must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Id. at 555. See also Edwards v.
Prime Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010). This
requires “more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must
accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and
take them in the light most favorable to plaintiff,
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), but
“[l]egal conclusions without adequate factual support
are entitled to no assumption of truth, ” Mamani v.
Berzain, 654 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations
omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
“Factual allegations that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability fall short of being facially
plausible.” Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693
F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Thus,
the Court engages in a two-step approach: “When there
are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume
their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give
rise to an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679.
seeks to dismiss plaintiff's Amended Complaint because
(1) the assignment of benefits is vague and instead of
identifying a specific assignee of benefits, it names two
alternative companies, (2) plaintiff fails to allege ultimate
facts to support its causes of action, and (3)
plaintiff's request for attorney's fees should be
stricken. (Doc. #17.)
The Assignment of Benefits
Assignment of Benefits relevant to this matter contains the
following language: “I, hereby, assign any and all
insurance rights, benefits, proceeds and any causes of action
under any applicable insurance policies to WrightWay
Emergency Services and/or Reynolds Ventures Inc. (hereinafter