Leedom Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Perlmutter

Leedom Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Perlmutter

Opinion

ORDER

This cause is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs' Joined Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaims for Failure to State a Claim and Strike Affirmative Defenses, which was filed on March 20, 2012. (Doc. # 73). Defendant Susan Perlmutter filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. # 87) on April 16, 2012. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Motion to Dismiss and denies the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses.

I. Background

Plaintiffs initiated this action against their former employee, Susan Perlmutter, on September 16, 2011, asserting the following complaint counts: misappropriation of trade secrets (count one); breach  [*2] of contract (count two); fraud in the inducement (count three); breach of fiduciary duty (count four); constructive fraud (count five); tortious interference with a business relationship (count six); temporary and permanent injunctive relief (count seven) and civil conspiracy (count eight).

Defendant asserted five counterclaims against Plaintiffs: (1) breach of contract; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) tortious interference with advantageous business and contractual relationships and future relationships; (4) bad faith; and (5) fraud in the inducement. (Doc. # 68). In addition, Defendant asserted various affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs seek to dismiss Defendant's counterclaims and strike Defendant's affirmative defenses.

II. Legal Standard

A. Motion to Dismiss

] A motion to dismiss a counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is evaluated in the same manner as a motion to dismiss a complaint. Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Title Dynamics, Inc., No. 2:04-cv-316-FtM-33SPC, 2005 WL 2548419, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 11, 2005). A counterclaim 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). In deciding  [*3] a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court must accept all factual allegations in the counterclaim as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the counterclaim plaintiff. See United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2009).

] "While a [counterclaim] attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (internal citations and quotations marks omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true." Id. (internal citations omitted).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.