From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matonis v. Care Holdings Grp., L.L.C.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.
Jun 25, 2019
423 F. Supp. 3d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

Summary

In Matonis, the plaintiff alleged the defendants "utilized the cease and desist letters as a tool to disparage [the plaintiff] as someone who ignores contractual obligations" and "stood to profit" because they were now in direct competition.

Summary of this case from De Cortes v. Brickell Inv. Realty, LLC

Opinion

Case No. 1:19-cv-20247-UU

2019-06-25

Shawna MATONIS, Plaintiff, v. CARE HOLDINGS GROUP, L.L.C., et al., Defendants.

Jonathan Edgar Pollard, Alexander P. Gil, Pollard PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff. Ryan Dwight O'Quinn, DLA Piper LLP, Miami, FL, Simon Ferro, Lewis Tein, Coconut Grove, FL, for Defendants.


Jonathan Edgar Pollard, Alexander P. Gil, Pollard PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff.

Ryan Dwight O'Quinn, DLA Piper LLP, Miami, FL, Simon Ferro, Lewis Tein, Coconut Grove, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

URSULA UNGARO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (the "Motion"). D.E. 19. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

I. Factual Background

A. Defendants

Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are taken from the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. D.E. 6. Defendant CareOptimize L.L.C. ("CareOptimize") is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of healthcare management consulting, advising healthcare providers on, inter alia , patient intake strategies and revenue management. Id. ¶¶ 3, 19. Defendant Care Holdings Group L.L.C. ("Care Holdings") is a Delaware corporation and the parent company of CareOptimize (together the "Care Companies"), overseeing CareOptimize and its other subsidiaries. Id.

Defendant Benjamin Quirk ("Quirk") is a Florida citizen, an agent of Care Holdings, and CareOptimize's Chief Strategy Officer tasked with running its day-to-day operations. Id. ¶ 5. Defendant Jonathan Shivers ("Shivers") is a Georgia citizen, an agent of Care Holdings, and, at all times relevant to this action, was CareOptimize's Chief Business Development Officer responsible for soliciting and locating new clients. Id. ¶ 6. Defendant Joseph N. De Vera ("De Vera") is a Florida citizen and, at all times relevant to this action, was CareOptimize's in-house counsel, as well as a member of and lawyer for Care Holdings. Id. De Vera also owns and operates a professional association based in Florida, Joseph N. De Vera, P.A., ("De Vera P.A."). Id. ¶ 8.

B. Matonis' Tenure at CareOptimize

Plaintiff Shawna Matonis ("Matonis") is an Ohio citizen and healthcare management consultant who provided consulting services to the Care Companies pursuant to a consulting agreement ("Consulting Agreement") entered into on or about January 8, 2016. D.E. 6 ¶¶ 2, 21. The Consulting Agreement contains a confidentiality provision and a non-solicitation provision with respect to the Care Companies' employees, consultants, and agents. Id. While Matonis was employed by the Care Companies she reported to Quirk and Shivers. Id. ¶ 22.

On September 9, 2016, while still employed with the Care Companies, Matonis founded her own consulting company, Caliber RCM, LLC ("Caliber"), to help health care providers track their revenue. Id. ¶ 23. After Matonis informed Defendants that she had created her company, Defendants explicitly authorized her work with Caliber. Id. Approximately one year later, on September 15, 2017, Quirk and Shivers informed Matonis that the Care Companies were in the process of transitioning their independent contractors to W-2 employees and offered Matonis a W-2 employment contract, which she declined. Id. ¶ 24. On September 26, 2017, Matonis met with Quirk to explain that she had not accepted the offer to transition to a W-2 employee because the proposal contained a two-year non-competition restriction and would have required Matonis to shut down Caliber. Id. ¶ 25.

Over the next eight months, the Care Companies transitioned the clients Matonis had been representing at CareOptimize to other CareOptimize employees. Id. ¶ 26. On June 4, 2018, Quirk and Shivers advised Matonis that the Care Companies would be informing clients that she was no longer affiliated with the Care Companies and that there was no need for her to communicate further with those clients. Id. ¶ 27. On June 15, 2018, the Care Companies told Matonis that they no longer needed her services and her relationship officially terminated no later than July 23, 2018. Id. ¶ 28.

C. Post-Departure Developments

As Matonis' involvement with the Care Companies was winding down and after she left, Matonis expanded the healthcare consulting services provided by Caliber into patient intake and revenue management, leading to direct competition with her former employer. Id. ¶ 29. During this time, Defendants informed a number of clients, for whom Matonis had worked while at the Care Companies, that Matonis was still affiliated with the Care Companies but was unable to work because she was suffering from ongoing health issues and had requested time off. D.E. 6 ¶¶ 31, 35. Matonis discovered that Defendants had been making these types of statements after two clients reached out to Matonis to check on her health. Id. Matonis informed the clients that she was not suffering from any health issues and that she had been removed from the account because she was no longer a Care Company independent contractor. Id.

On July 4, 2018, Matonis received another call from a client, Mike Clancey ("Clancey"), regarding her health after Shivers told Clancey that his account had been transferred to a different CareOptimize employee due to Matonis' medical issues. Id. ¶ 36. After Matonis dispelled that notion, Clancey emailed Quirk and Shivers on July 10, 2018, expressing his dissatisfaction with their dishonesty about Matonis. Id. ¶ 37. Quirk emailed Clancey back on the same day to assure him that Matonis would continue to work with the Care Companies indefinitely and was still available to be Azura's point person, despite the fact that Matonis had been terminated almost a month prior. Id. ¶ 39.

D. De Vera's Cease and Desist Letters

After numerous clients terminated their relationships with Defendants in June, 2018, in July through September 2018, De Vera, on behalf of Defendants, sent cease and desist letters to clients for whom Matonis had worked while at CareOptimize and to Matonis directly. Id. ¶¶ 41-49. In these letters, De Vera asserted that Matonis was still subject to "broad confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions" in her Consulting Agreement and threatened legal action if Matonis continued to solicit CareOptimize's clients and/or if those clients sought Matonis' services. Id.

E. Defendants Continue to Misrepresent Matonis as a Care Company Agent

On December 1, 2018, Matonis discovered that Defendants had created an "out of office" auto-response message on Mantonis' former email account at Defendants, to which Matonis has not had access since July, 2018. Id. ¶¶ 28, 49. Matonis contends that the auto-response message created a false notion that she remained affiliated with the Care Companies, while at the same time tainting her reputation as a professional who promptly returns her client's messages. Id. ¶ 50.

F. General Misrepresentations on Care Companies' Website

Lastly, Matonis alleges that CareOptimize's website advertises that it serves over twenty thousand healthcare providers nationwide, when allegedly, it serves closer to five thousand healthcare providers at any given time. Id. ¶ 54. According to Matonis, the website misrepresents CareOptimize's client base, listing Azura and CEEC as clients even after both companies terminated their relationship with CareOptimize. Id. ¶ 55.

II. Procedural Background

On February 8, 2019, Matonis re-filed a five-count Amended Complaint, alleging: (1) False Advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ; (2) Unfair Competition under Florida law as to all Defendants; (3) Defamation per se as to all Defendants; (4) Tortious Interference; and (5) declaratory judgment that Matonis is not precluded from working with the Care Companies' current, former, or prospective clients. D.E. 6. On March 8, 2019, defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

III. Legal Standard

In order to state a claim, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." While a court, at this stage of the litigation, must consider the allegations contained in the plaintiff's complaint as true, this rule "is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). In addition, the complaint's allegations must include "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). Thus, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).

In practice, 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, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. The plausibility standard requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. Id. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific undertaking that requires the court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

IV. Analysis

A. Independent Tort Doctrine

Defendants first argue that Counts One through Four are barred under Florida's independent tort doctrine which "bars a contracting party from recovery in tort where the act complained of relates to the performance of the contract." De Sterling v. Bank of Am., N.A. , No. 09-21490-CIV, 2009 WL 3756335, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2009). According to Defendants, their relationship with Plaintiff arises solely from the Consulting Agreement and Matonis cannot point to "any duty that exists independently of the duties arising under the [Consulting] Agreement" and therefore the tort claims in Counts One through Four relate to the performance of the Consulting Agreement and must be dismissed. D.E. 19 at 4-5.

However, the independent tort doctrine does not bar claims where the plaintiff has alleged conduct that is independent from acts that breached the contract and does not itself constitute breach of the contract at issue. XP Glob., Inc. v. AVM, L.P. , No. 16-CV-80905, 2016 WL 4987618, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2016) ; De Sterling , No. 09-21490-CIV, 2009 WL 3756335, at *3 ("The [independent tort doctrine] does not bar a tort action ... [based on] acts considered to be independent from acts that breached the contract ... tort claims such as fraud, conversion, intentional interference and civil theft remain viable even if the parties are in privity of contract."); See HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses , 685 So. 2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 1996). ("Where a contract exists, a tort action will lie for either intentional or negligent acts considered to be independent from acts that breached the contract.").

Here, the tort claims in Counts One through Four are independent from any breach of the Consulting Agreement. First, these claims all relate to conduct independent of the services Matonis provided to Defendants under the Consulting Agreement, namely the post-termination representations made by Defendants. See Azure, LLC v. Figueras Seating U.S.A., Inc. , No. 12-CV-23670-UU, 2013 WL 12093811, at *6 (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2013) ("Because the fraud and misrepresentation claims are attended by some additional conduct that is not alleged with respect to the breach of contract claim, the tort claims are not barred by [the independent tort doctrine].").

Further, in order to state a claim for these torts, Plaintiff must allege facts that are separate and distinct from a breach of contract claim, which requires (1) the existence of a contract, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) damages flowing from the breach. See Wistar v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. , 365 F.Supp.3d 1266, 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2018) ; see also HTP, Ltd. , 685 So. 2d at 1239 (explaining that fraud claim was not barred by independent tort doctrine because it required proof of separate and distinct facts from breach of contract claim).

Defendants' assertion that Matonis' tort claims arise from violations of duties imposed by her Consulting Agreement with CareOptimize is similarly meritless. None of her claims sound in negligence or otherwise involve the breach of any contractual duty, let alone breaches of duties created by the Consulting Agreement. For example, Count One alleges false advertising under the Lanham Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ), which provides a strict liability tort cause of action against a party who uses a name in commerce that is likely to cause confusion; there is no breach of a duty involved. Vector Products, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. , 397 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2005). Count Two alleges Unfair Competition under Florida law, which requires that a party plead "(1) deceptive or fraudulent conduct of a competitor and (2) likelihood of consumer confusion." Third Party Verification, Inc. v. Signaturelink, Inc. , 492 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1324 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (citation omitted). Lastly, neither of Matonis' defamation per se claim nor her tortious interference claim in Counts Three or Four require that she plead the breach of any contractual duty. See Thomas v. Jacksonville Television, Inc. , 699 So. 2d 800, 803–04 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997) (listing the elements of defamation under Florida law); see also Int'l Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Austral Insulated Prod., Inc. , 262 F.3d 1152, 1154 (11th Cir. 2001) (listing elements of tortious interference under Florida law). Accordingly, as Matonis' tort claims do not depend upon the breach of any contractual duty in the Consulting Agreement and are separate and independent from any potential breach of contract claim, Florida's independent tort doctrine does not bar her claims and the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion on this ground.

Moreover, Defendants fail to identify any duties in the Consulting Agreement regarding solicitation of past, present, or future clients by the parties, and Defendants do not cite to a specific portion of the contract that imposes the duties involved in the allegations relating to Matonis' tort claims. The only potentially relevant clause is the solicitation clause, which only bars solicitation of CareOptimize's employees, consultants, or agents, none of which are at issue here. D.E. 19-1.

B. Improper Defendants

Defendants next argue, without any citation to any relevant caselaw or rules of civil procedure, that Care Holdings, Quirk, Shivers, De Vera, and De Vera P.A. are improper defendants because Matonis has failed to properly distinguish "what duty each owed to Matonis." D.E. 19 at 5-6. As discussed supra , the existence of a legal duty is not relevant to Matonis' tort claims. Had Defendants researched the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure they would have come across Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, which provides:

[P]ersons ... may be joined in one action as defendants if:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B).

Matonis has unquestionably satisfied these requirements as she alleges that all Defendants were involved in the operation of the Care Companies and the allegedly defamatory and misleading statements. Further, Rule 21 unequivocally states "misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Lastly, Defendants argue that Matonis has failed to allege any claims against Defendants in their individual capacities. Not only is this irrelevant, but it is simply untrue. See e.g. , D.E. 6 ¶ 33 ("[I]n June 2018, Quirk informed Matonis' former client Nova, that Matonis could no longer work its account because she was suffering from an ongoing health condition that compromised her ability to work."); D.E. 6-6. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion on this ground.

C. Count One as a Matter of Law

i. Parties' Arguments

In Count One, Matonis brings a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act, alleging that Defendants made numerous false and misleading statements to clients, including: that Matonis was too ill to adequately service clients necessitating their transfer to Care Optimize employees, that Matonis was in violation of her Consulting Agreement, that she had been on vacation since July 2018, and that the CareOptimize website falsely inflates the scope of its clientele and its relationship with certain clients. D.E. 6 ¶¶ 61-71.

Defendants argue that Matonis' claim in Count One must be dismissed because the cease and desist letters do not constitute commercial speech or advertising for purposes of the Lanham Act and the allegedly false statements on Defendants' website do not directly disparage Plaintiff; and otherwise fall short of the pleading standard under the Lanham Act. The Court will address each contention in turn, although neither persuades the Court that this Count must be dismissed.

Defendants also contend that Counts Two and Four also fail as a matter of law. However, they raise these issues for the first time in their reply brief, and they are therefore not properly before this Court and the Court does not consider these arguments. See Herring v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections , 397 F.3d 1338, 1342 (11th Cir. 2005) ("As we repeatedly have admonished, ‘[a]rguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before a reviewing court.’ ") (quoting United States v. Coy , 19 F.3d 629, 632 n. 7 (11th Cir. 1994) ).

ii. Cease and Desist Letters as Commercial Speech

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) prohibits false advertising in "commercial advertising and promotion." To succeed on a false advertising claim, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) the advertisements of the opposing party were false or misleading; (2) the advertisements deceived, or had the capacity to deceive, consumers; (3) the deception had a material effect on purchasing decisions; (4) the misrepresented product or service affects interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false advertising. Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co. , 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004).

With regard to whether a statement is "commercial advertising or promotion" under the Lanham Act, courts in this circuit use the four-part test set forth in Gordon & Breach Sci. Publishers v. Am. Inst. of Physics , 859 F.Supp. 1521, 1535-36 (S.D. N.Y. 1994). See Futuristic Fences, Inc. v. Illusion Fence Corp. , 558 F.Supp.2d 1270, 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2008) ; AlphaMed Pharms. Corp. v. Arriva Pharms., Inc. , 391 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1164 (S.D. Fla. 2005). Under this test, for statements to fall within the meaning of "advertising or promotion" they must be: (1) commercial speech; (2) by a defendant who is in commercial competition with the plaintiff; (3) for the purpose of influencing consumers to buy defendant's goods or services; and (4) they must be disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing public to constitute "advertising" or "promotion" within that industry. Taslidzic v. Luther , No. 9:18-CV-80038, 2018 WL 3134419, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2018). "Commercial speech encompasses not merely direct invitations to trade, but also communications designed to advance business interests ...." Id. (quoting VG Innovations, Inc. v. Minsurg Corp. , 2011 WL 1466181 at *5 (M.D. Fla. April 18, 2011) (citation omitted)).

Defendants argue that the cease and desist letters do not constitute commercial speech or advertising under the Lanham Act because they were merely sent to protect the legal rights of the Care companies. D.E. 19 at 6-7. But, "[c]ommercial speech encompasses not merely direct invitations to trade, but also communications designed to advance business interests." VG Innovations, Inc. v. Minsurg Corp. , 2011 WL 1466181 at *5 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (quoting Kleiner v. First National Bank of Atlanta , 751 F.2d 1193, 1204, n. 22 (11th Cir. 1985). Here, Matonis alleges that Defendants utilized the cease and desist letters as a tool to disparage Plaintiff as someone who ignores contractual obligations. D.E. 6 ¶ 41. Matonis alleges that by maligning her, Defendants stood to profit because Matonis' consulting company was now in direct competition with Defendants and the clients to whom the letters were sent were former clients of Defendants who were interested in Matonis' services. See id. ; Taslidzic v. Luther , No. 9:18-CV-80038, 2018 WL 3134419, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2018) ("Courts have held that similar allegations of disparaging statements made against competitors ‘[i]n an effort to gain more market share’ are sufficient to satisfy the Lanham Act's commercial speech requirements at the motion to dismiss stage.") (quoting Millenium Labs., Inc. v. Universal Oral Fluid Labs., LLC , No. 8:11-CV-1757-MSS-TBM, 2012 WL 12906334, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2012) ); Advisors Excel, L.L.C. v. Scranton , No. 14-60558-CIV, 2014 WL 12543802, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2014) (holding that defendants' disparaging statements were commercial speech because they were "designed to advance Advisors' Academy's business interests through influencing consumers to buy Advisors' Academy's services, rather than Plaintiff's. Moreover, it is undisputed that Advisors' Academy and Plaintiff are in commercial competition with one another."); cf. Futuristic Fences, Inc. , 558 F.Supp.2d at 1281 (holding that cease and desist letters were not "commercial speech" because their purpose was not to influence the recipients into buying defendant's products, but rather to inform the recipients of allegations of infringement). Accordingly, the Court finds that Matonis has adequately alleged that the cease and desist letters constitute commercial speech and DENIES Defendants' Motion on this ground.

iii. False Advertising on Defendants' Website

As to the statements on Defendants' website, Defendants contend that since Matonis did not allege that any disparaging statements were made about her on the website, she has failed to state a claim for false advertising. D.E. 19 at 6-7. This argument is unpersuasive. First, Defendants do not explain why Matonis' failure to allege that Defendants' website contained disparaging comments about her renders her claim defective. See Fed. Ins. Co. v. Cty. of Westchester , 921 F. Supp. 1136, 1138 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ("Under the adversary system, it is counsel's responsibility to explain why these points have legal merit; the Court does not serve as counsel's law clerk."). Second, assuming that Defendants seek to argue that Matonis has failed to allege that she suffered any injury as a result of any allegedly false statements on their website, their argument still fails. This element of the Lanham Act only requires the Plaintiff to prove that she has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false advertising, not that the advertisement(s) are directed specifically at her. Hickson Corp. , 357 F.3d at 1260. By alleging that Plaintiff and Defendants are competitors in the healthcare management consulting industry, and that Defendants falsely represent the number of clients it represents and the scope of the representation, Plaintiff has satisfied her burden at this stage of the litigation to show injury or the possibility of injury due to Defendants' false advertisements on their website. See Precision IBC, Inc. v. PCM Capital, LLC , No. CIV.A. 10-00682-CG-B, 2011 WL 5444114, at *7 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 17, 2011), report and recommendation adopted , No. CIV.A. 10-00682-CG-B, 2011 WL 5444111 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 10, 2011) ("[T]he undersigned finds that Plaintiff has alleged the type of injury that the Lanham Act is designed to address. Because Plaintiff competes head-to-head with Defendants, Plaintiff is at a competitive disadvantage if Defendants are able to advance their market position through false advertisements."). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion on this ground.

D. Count Three as a Matter of Law

Plaintiff brings a claim for defamation per se against Defendants on the grounds that they published false statements, orally and in writing, to several of Plaintiff's current and prospective clients that: (1) she was suffering from an ongoing health problem that affected her ability to work on their accounts; (2) she is in violation of a non-solicitation agreement by working with the Care Companies' former clients; and (3) continued work with her would expose them to legal liability. D.E. 6 ¶ 79.

Under Florida law, to state a claim for defamation—libel or slander—the plaintiff must allege that: "(1) the defendant published a false statement; (2) about the plaintiff; (3) to a third party; and (4) that the falsity of the statement caused injury to the plaintiff." Alan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 604 Fed. App'x. 863, 865 (11th Cir. 2015). In a per se action, statements qualify as defamation when, considered alone and without innuendo, they: (1) charge that a person has committed an infamous crime; (2) tend to subject one to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace; or (3) tend to injure one in his trade or profession. Id. "[T]he language used should be interpreted as the ‘common mind’ would normally understand it." Scobie v. Taylor , 2013 WL 3776270, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2013). There are two iterations of actionable language tending to injure one in his trade or profession: (1) language that "tend[s] to injure a person in [his] office, occupation, business, or employment and which in natural and proximate consequence will necessarily cause injury"; and (2) "language that imputes to another conduct, characteristics, or a condition incompatible with the proper exercise of his lawful business, trade, profession or office." Id. (quoting Metropolis Co. v. Croasdell , 145 Fla. 455, 199 So. 568 (1941) ; Fun Spot of Florida, Inc. v. Magical Midway of Cent. Florida, Ltd. , 242 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1197 (M.D. Fla. 2002) ).

Plaintiff contends that the statements she attributes to Defendants qualify as defamation per se because even when considered alone, they tend to subject her to distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace and are injurious to her trade and professional reputation. D.E. 6 ¶ 80. Defendants argue in completely conclusory fashion that none of the allegedly defamatory statements constitute defamation per se under Florida Law because they are not allegations that she committed an "infamous crime" or that would subject her to distrust or ridicule. D.E. 19 at 7-8. But, Defendants conveniently omit the third category of defamatory statements, those "that tend to injure one in his trade or profession." Alan , 604 Fed. App'x. 863, 865 (11th Cir. 2015).

Considering the defamatory statements alleged in the complaint alone and interpreting them as a "common mind" would normally understand them, Matonis has adequately alleged that the statements tend to injure her profession:

The false and misleading representations had a material effect on Matonis' current and prospective clients' decisions to do business with her because no company would do business with Matonis if it believed that (1) Matonis was in breach of her contractual relationship with CareOptimize, (2) she was potentially too ill to provide services, or (3) a relationship with Matonis could result in exposure to legal liability....

Matonis has been harmed by the diminished economic value of the goodwill and reputation that she built over her many years in the health care management consulting services industry.

D.E. 6 ¶¶ 66, 82 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion on this ground.

E. Shotgun Pleading

Lastly, Defendants argue that although the Court sua sponte dismissed the initial complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8, the amended complaint fails to adequately address the failings the Court identified and is therefore still subject to dismissal as a shotgun pleading. "A shotgun-style complaint is [sic] one that incorporates all of the general factual allegations by reference into each subsequent claim for relief." Great Fla. Bank v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 2011 WL 382588, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2011) (quotations omitted); see also , e.g., Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp. , 123 F.3d 1353, 1359 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1997) (finding a shotgun pleading where "a reader of the complaint must speculate as to which factual allegations pertain to which count."); Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll. , 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996) (finding complaint was "perfect example of ‘shotgun’ pleading in that it [was] virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact [were] intended to support which claim(s) for relief.") (citation omitted).

The Court disagrees with Defendants because Plaintiff has adequately amended her complaint. She has removed the unnecessary paragraphs, bringing the total down from 165 to 106, while incorporating only relevant facts in each count. Moreover, she has adequately explained how each factual allegation supports each element of her claims. See e.g. , D.E. 6 ¶ 66 ("The false and misleading representations had a material effect on Matonis' current and prospective clients' decisions to do business with her because no company would do business with Matonis if it believed that ... she was potentially too ill to provide services, or [that] ... a relationship with Matonis could result in exposure to legal liability."). Therefore, the Amended Complaint is not a shotgun pleading. Broberg v. Carnival Corporation , 303 F.Supp.3d 1313, 1320 (S.D. Fla. 2017) ("The Eleventh Circuit, while consistently condemning shotgun pleadings, has cautioned that dismissal of a claim should be the last resort.") (quotations omitted).

V. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed supra , it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, D.E. 19, is DENIED. Defendants SHALL FILE an ANSWER to Plaintiff's complaint by Friday, June 28 , 2019. FAILURE TO RESPOND BY THIS DATE MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DEFAULT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 25th day of June, 2019.


Summaries of

Matonis v. Care Holdings Grp., L.L.C.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.
Jun 25, 2019
423 F. Supp. 3d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

In Matonis, the plaintiff alleged the defendants "utilized the cease and desist letters as a tool to disparage [the plaintiff] as someone who ignores contractual obligations" and "stood to profit" because they were now in direct competition.

Summary of this case from De Cortes v. Brickell Inv. Realty, LLC
Case details for

Matonis v. Care Holdings Grp., L.L.C.

Case Details

Full title:Shawna MATONIS, Plaintiff, v. CARE HOLDINGS GROUP, L.L.C., et al.…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Date published: Jun 25, 2019

Citations

423 F. Supp. 3d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

Citing Cases

De Cortes v. Brickell Inv. Realty, LLC

To determine whether a statement is "commercial advertising or promotion" under the Lanham Act, courts in…

Marron v. Moros

Matonis v. Care Holdings Grp., LLC, 423 F.Supp.3d 1304, 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (quoting Alan v. Wells…