United States District Court, S.D. Florida
BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's
American Marine Tech., Inc's (“American
Marine”) Motion to Dismiss Counts I and III of
Defendants' Counterclaim, ECF No.  (the
“Motion”). The Court has carefully reviewed the
Motion, all opposing and supporting materials, the record and
applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the
reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.
Plaintiff, American Marine, is a vessel repair and service
facility and parts provider located in Palm Beach County,
Florida. ECF No. , at ¶ 1. The M/Y ALCHEMIST, is a
1995 105' Mangusta recreational vessel, MMSI 368017950,
call sign DJ8591 (the “Vessel”). Id. at
¶ 2. Defendant World Group Yachting, Inc. (“World
Group”) is the owner of the Vessel. Id. at
alleges that in July 2016, Defendant World Group, through its
agent and representative, Gary Blonder
(“Blonder”) on behalf of Yacht Charter Group
(“Yachter Charter”), entered into a service
agreement (the “Service Agreement”) with American
Marine to provide materials and services to the Vessel.
Id. at ¶ 7. The materials and work contemplated
by the Service Agreement included “a total engine
repower from Dentz engines to two MTU 2000 V-16 M91 engines,
and [the] associated and additional materials and services,
including mechanical work [and] electrical work.”
Id. Plaintiff has attached a copy of the Service
Agreement to its Complaint, which has been executed by
Blonder and Yacht Charter. See Exh. A, ECF No.
claims that it fully performed the services and materials as
agreed upon in the Service Agreement. Id. at
¶¶ 10, 14. Plaintiff further alleges that World
Group, Blonder, and Yacht Charter have failed to pay its
outstanding balance of $55, 645.20 for services and materials
provided by American Marine, despite repeated demands for
payment. Id. at ¶¶ at 11-3. Plaintiff
claims as a direct and proximate result of this failure to
pay, it has incurred and paid significant expenses for
salaries and wages, and materials. Id. at ¶ 15.
Plaintiff has asserted a claim for Enforcement of Lien for
Necessaries against the Vessel (Count I); a claim for breach
of contract against the Vessel (Count II); and a claim for
breach of contract against World Group Yachting (Count III)
in its Complaint. See generally ECF No. .
1, 2019, Defendants World Group and the Vessel (collectively
referred to as “Defendants”) filed their Amended
Answer asserting three counterclaims against the Plaintiff.
ECF No.  (the “Counterclaim”). The
Counterclaim included claims for negligence (Count I); breach
of implied warranty of workmanlike performance (Count II);
and unjust enrichment (Count III) against the Plaintiff.
Counterclaim, Defendants allege that the Service Agreement
was entered into by American Marine and Yacht Charter to
perform certain work related to installing engines onboard
the Vessel. Id. at 6. Defendants have also attached
a copy of the Service Agreement to their Counterclaim.
See ECF No. [41-1]. Defendants allege that American
Marine initially agreed to complete the work promised in the
Service Agreement for an estimated $86, 020.00. ECF No. ,
at 6. The Defendants claim that the Service Agreement also
contains a provision, which states that the estimate would
not “exceed more than 10% of the base amount without a
signed authorization.” Id. The Defendants
allege that American Marine agreed that the
“Owner's staff [would] perform requested labor
which will be subtracted from [the estimated amount].”
claim that once American Marine began performing the work
promised in the Service Agreement, there were “numerous
problems with the quality of AMT's workmanship.”
Id. Defendants assert that the work was delayed far
beyond the 8-10 weeks originally estimated by American
Marine. Id. at 7. Defendants allege that American
Marine was ultimately paid $96, 184.38. Id.
Defendants contend that this amount reflected more than the
additional 10% maximum that American Marine could charge
without a signed authorization, and that a signed
authorization was never executed. Id. at 7-8.
Therefore, Defendants allege that American Marine has
overbilled for the work that was done. Id. at 8.
Defendants estimate that the amount overbilled is at least
$1, 561.92 but is potentially “much higher” as
they assert that the Plaintiff never credited the work done
by the Owner's crew as previously agreed. Id.
has now moved to dismiss the Defendants claims for negligence
(Count I) and unjust enrichment (Count III) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF No. .
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)). “To 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.'”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
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). Pleadings that “are no more than conclusions,
are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they
must be supported by factual allegations.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Sinaltrainal v.
Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009)
(“‘[U]nwarranted deductions of fact' in a
complaint are not admitted as true for the purpose of testing
the sufficiency of plaintiff's allegations.”).
Moreover, “courts ...