United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
ORDER DENYING “DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM
BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on “Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint and
Memorandum of Law, ” filed by counsel on November 1,
2019. (Doc. # 14). On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff Holly
Green filed a response in opposition to the motion. (Doc. #
18). After reviewing the motion, response, court file, and
the record, the Court finds as follows:
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). “Although Rule 8(a) does not require
‘detailed factual allegations,' it does require
‘more than labels and conclusions'; a
‘formulaic recitation of the cause of action will not
do.'” Young v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 18-
62468, 2018 WL 7572240, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2018),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-62468-CIV,
2019 WL 1112274 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2019) (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). In order to
survive a motion to dismiss, factual allegations must be
sufficient “to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, review is generally limited
to the four corners of the complaint. Rickman v.
Precisionaire, Inc., 902 F.Supp. 232, 233 (M.D. Fla.
1995). Furthermore, when reviewing a complaint for facial
sufficiency, a court “must accept [a] [p]laintiff's
well pleaded facts as true, and construe the [c]omplaint in
the light most favorable to the [p]laintiff.”
Id. (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.
232, 236 (1974)).
seek dismissal of Count II of the complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Specifically, Defendants contend that Plaintiff
has failed to assert sufficient factual allegations to
identify the essential terms of the alleged contract, and has
failed to attach any documents - such as a copy of the
alleged contract - to her complaint that would clarify or
confirm the essential terms of the contract.
review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's failure to make
detailed factual allegations concerning the dates and
specific terms of the alleged contract does not warrant
dismissal. See Manicini Enterprises, Inc. v. American
Exp. Co., 236 F.R.D. 695, 698 (S.D. Fla. 2006). A breach
of contract claim does not need to be pled with
particularity. Rather, a breach of contract claim only needs
to comply with Rule 8. Pals Group, Inc. v. Quiskeya
Trading Corp., Case No. 16-23905-CIV-GOODMAN, 2017 WL
3840359, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2017) (citing
Manicini, 236 F.R.D. at 698). “To do so, the
plaintiff must allege: (1) a valid contract, (2) a material
breach, and (3) damages. Any remaining inquiries which
defendants may have concerning the specific terms of the
alleged contracts may be resolved through the discovery
process.” Id. (internal quotation and
alteration omitted); see also Pegasus Aviation IV, Inc.
v. Aircraft Composite Technologies, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-21255-UU, 2016 WL 3390122, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 17,
2016) (explaining that because rule 8 does not require the
greatest specificity, a plaintiff only needs to allege enough
facts to plausibly show the defendant breached the contract);
Great American Ins. Co. v. Pino Kaoba & Associates,
Inc., Case No. 08-20847-CIV-DIMITROULEAS, 2008 WL
11333253, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2008) (explaining that a
plaintiff asserting a breach of contract claim does not need
to allege the date that the contract was entered into or
terms such as date of completion, nature of work, or
case, the complaint contains sufficient allegations to put
Defendants on notice as to the nature of the claim and the
relief Plaintiff seeks. According to Plaintiff, a contract
existed between her and the Practice that during her
employment, the Practice would pay her for three (3) weeks of
vacation. Plaintiff alleges that although she has fully and
satisfactorily performed her duties under the contract, the
Practice has refused to pay Plaintiff the three (3) weeks of
vacation due under the terms of the written contract, and
that she has been damaged as a result of this breach. These
facts satisfy the simple notice pleading requirements of Rule
8(a), and any remaining inquiries concerning the specific
terms of the alleged contract may be resolved through
when asserting a breach of contract claim, it is
well-established that in federal court, a plaintiff is not
required to attach a copy of the contract to the complaint.
See, e.g., Yencarelli v. USAA Casualty Co.,
Case No. 8:17-cv-2029-T-36AEP, 2017 WL 6559999, at *2 (M.D.
Fla. Dec. 22, 2017) (“It is adequate for Plaintiff to
allege that a contract exists, without attaching the contract
to the complaint in federal court.”); TaiDoc
Technology Corp. v. Pharma Supply, Inc., Case No.
13-80682-CIV-RYSKAMP/HOPKINS, 2013 WL 12383787, at *2 (S.D.
Fla. Aug. 29, 2013) (“The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure do not require the attachment of the contract sued
upon.”); Manicini, 236 F.R.D. at 698 (holding
that the plaintiff's failure to attach purported written
contracts to complaint did not warrant dismissal for failure
to state a claim). As such, Plaintiff is not required to
attach a copy of the written contract to support her breach
of contract claim in Count II.
ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count II of
Plaintiffs Complaint and Memorandum ...