Mendez-Arriola v. White Wilson Med. Ctr. (Full Text)

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION

P a g e 1 o f 16

DANAE MENDEZ-ARRIOLA, M.D.

Plaintiff,

WHITE WILSON MEDICAL CENTER PA,
et al.

Defendants
_______________________________/

Case No. 3:09cv495/MCR/EMT

O R D E R
Plaintiff, Danae Mendez-Arriola, M.D., has sued White W ilson Medical Center, P.A.
1
(“Clinic”); White W ilson Properties Partnership (“WWP”); WW Real Estate, LLC (“WWRE”);
Douglas W . Rigby, M.D.; and Alan L. Gieseman for disability discrimination, sex
discrimination and retaliation under federal and state law; and breach of contract, breach
of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty under state
law in connection with her removal as a shareholder/employee of the Clinic and as a
partner/investor in WWP. Mendez also seeks declaratory relief. Presently before the court
are defendants’ motion for a more definite statement or, in the alternative, motion to
dismiss (doc. 52); and Mendez’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting
defendants’ leave to reply (docs. 72, 77). For the reasons given below, defendants’ motion
will be granted in part and denied in part; Mendez’s motion for reconsideration will be
denied.
Background
The allegations are as follows. In 1997, the Clinic, a Florida corporation located in
Fort Walton Beach, Florida, employed Mendez as a radiologist. Rigby was president and
director of the Clinic and Gieseman was its chief executive officer. In 1999, Mendez

In h e r c om p la in t , M e n d e z -A r r io la a b b re v ia te s he r n am e to M e n de z ; the c o u r t w ill d o th e s am e .

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 16

P a g e 2 o f 16

became a shareholder of the Clinic. On August 1, 2000, Mendez and the Clinic entered
into a Shareholder Employment Agreement (“Clinic agreement”) which incorporated the
Clinic’s bylaws.
WWP was a Florida partnership that owned the real property on which the Clinic
operated its business. On February 28, 2002, Mendez signed a promissory note, payable
to WWP, for one hundred twenty consecutive monthly installments of $606.64, and agreed
to assume her pro rata share of WWP’s obligations. In consideration for the note, Mendez
acquired full partnership rights and interests in WWP, subject to certain vesting provisions. 2
Specifically, the promissory note provided that Mendez would vest in equity upon
completion of ten years of service and full payment of the note. Furthermore, the note
provided that termination from the Clinic, for any reason or no reason at all, would
constitute withdrawal from WWP; and, in such event, only Mendez’s principal would be
refunded to her.
Some time later, the common leadership of the Clinic and WWP, including Rigby
and Gieseman, reorganized the entities. They formed WWRE, a Florida limited liability
3
company, to take title to the real property held by WWP; and White W ilson Association,
PA (“WWA”), to act as a holding company for both the Clinic and WWRE. Rigby became
president of both WWRE and WWA. In 2007, WWRE purchased the real property from
WWP for $24,290,000. WWP wrote to Mendez that her proportionate interest in the
partnership was $661,000; she could cash out in 2006 and receive a payment of
approximately $402,000, or wait until 2012 and receive approximately $1,165,000. WWP
also provided Mendez with tax documentation related to capital gains on her individual
equity interest in WWP, and paid her approximately $40,000 to cover her expected capital
gains tax.

2
A lth o u g h M e n d e z d o e s n o t d is c u s s th e ve s t in g p ro v is io n s in h e r c om p la in t , the p rom is s o ry n o te
a t ta c h e d to h e r c om p la in t de f in e s “ve s t in g ” a s h a v in g th e s am e m e a n in g a s in th e W W P p a r tn e rs h ip
a g reem e n t . S e e F ed . R . C iv . P . 1 0 (c ) ; N o v o n e u ro n In c . v . A d d ic t io n R e s e a rch In s t . , In c . , 3 2 6 F e d . A p p x . 5 0 5 ,
5 0 8 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . T h is m e a n in g is u n c le a r , h ow e ve r , b e c au s e M e n d e z d id n o t a t ta c h th e W W P
p a r tn e rsh ip a g re em e n t to h e r c om p la in t .

T h e c om p la in t is u n c le a r a s to w h e n th e re o rga n iza t io n o c c u r re d .

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 16

P a g e 3 o f 16

Some time prior to 2008, Mendez’s work conditions at the Clinic deteriorated. A
number of radiologists left the Clinic, leaving Mendez with an increased workload.
Notwithstanding, Mendez was required to meet a newly-imposed 24-hour turnaround on
her work. According to the complaint, the Clinic ignored Mendez’s repeated requests for
assistance and lowered her compensation by changing compensation formulas, double-
charging her for transcription costs, and outsourcing more lucrative radiology work off-site.
When Mendez complained, the Clinic leadership subjected her to continued abuse and
unfair criticism, including blaming her for errors caused by problems with transcription
services. Mendez alleges that this abuse and unfair criticism was based on, at least in
4
part, her female gender and the Clinic’s perception that she was mentally or
psychologically disabled. According to Mendez, although she was the senior member of
the Clinic’s radiology department, the Clinic denied her request to become director of the
department and instead brought in an outside, male, radiologist to fill the position. In
addition, when Mendez ran for election to the Clinic’s board of directors, hoping to become
its first female member, the all-male board rejected her.
On May 29, 2008, the Clinic’s board of directors gave Mendez a letter advising her
that its members had voted to summarily suspend her based on the May 27, 2008
recommendation of the Clinic’s risk management committee. The same day, the Clinic
informed Mendez that the suspension was for ninety days, and was based on errors in
twenty-five of her patient files. According to Mendez, none of the identified errors affected
the quality of medical care delivered to the patients or brought disrepute to the Clinic. On
June 4, 2008, Mendez wrote to the Clinic that the suspension was an improper attempt to
replace her with a younger male doctor and prevent her from vesting in WWP. Mendez
requested a hearing pursuant to the Clinic’s bylaws, which the Clinic failed to provide.
Instead, on June 5, 2008, the board affirmed her suspension with a memorandum stating
that Mendez would be suspended for at least ninety days; her return to work would be
conditioned on parameters outlined by the Clinic; and she’d be required to seek additional

T h e c om p la in t p ro v id e s n o fu r th e r d e ta ils a b o u t th e a lle g e d a b u s e a n d u n fa ir c r it ic ism .

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 4 of 16

P a g e 4 o f 16

education and a psychological evaluation, both approved by the Clinic. On June 6, 2008,
the Clinic’s medical director and Karl Metz, M.D., met with Mendez, telling her she was a
“bad citizen” of the Clinic and a “liability;” she should return to work once she had “healed;”
and she was required to undergo a psychological evaluation by a doctor of the Clinic’s
choosing before returning to work. (Doc. 37, at ¶ 47.) In addition, they gave Mendez a
5
document entitled “Citizenship Issues” which criticized her work style. On June 27, 2008,
the Clinic responded to Mendez’s June 4, 2008 letter, informing her of the board’s vote to
affirm her suspension. The letter notified Mendez that her return to work would be
conditioned on parameters outlined by the Clinic, and required her to seek additional
education and a psychological evaluation, both approved by the Clinic. Furthermore, the
Clinic denied Mendez’s July 4, 2008 written request for a hearing, stating that her letter had
raised no material factual disputes and that her suspension was in accord with the Clinic’s
bylaws.
Mendez, through her counsel, informed the Clinic in writing of her belief that the
Clinic was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act, by requiring her to undergo a psychological
evaluation, without any basis, before allowing her to return to work. On October 16, 2008,
6
according to Mendez was shortly after she complained that the Clinic’s actions were
discriminatory, the Clinic fired her. Prior to her termination, the Clinic hired a male
radiologist as a shareholder of the Clinic. According to Mendez, unlike her, the male
7
radiologist was not required to work as an associate for two years prior to becoming a
shareholder. Mendez alleges that most of the harms outlined above, including her
termination, took place after the male radiologist was hired, and stemmed from the Clinic’s
intent to replace Mendez with a male. At the time, Mendez was the only female radiologist

5
T h e com p la in t d o e s n o t id en t ify th e C lin ic ’s m ed ic a l d ire c to r b y n am e , o r e x p la in K a r l M e tz ’s p o s it ion
w ith th e C lin ic .

T h e c om p la in t is u n c le a r a s to th e d a te M e n de z in fo rm ed th e C lin ic o f h e r b e lie f .

T h e c om p la in t is u n c le a r a s to th e id e n t ity o r q u a lif ic a t io n s o f th e m a le ra d io lo g is t .

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 5 of 16

P a g e 5 o f 16

working for the Clinic. Mendez alleges that after she was terminated the male radiologist
assumed her workload. On December 8, 2008, WWP sent Mendez a check for
$28,300.45, which WWP described as a refund of the principal of Mendez’s payments into
the partnership. On October 27, 2009, the Clinic sent Mendez a check for $40,000, which
the Clinic described as payment for the redemption of her shareholder interest in the Clinic;
the Clinic provided no explanation as to how it derived the figure, or why it took over a year
after Mendez’s termination for the Clinic to send the payment to her. Mendez alleges that
she lost the value of her equity interest in the Clinic, WWP, and WWRE.8
On or about November 24, 2008, Mendez filed an administrative charge of
discrimination, based on disability, sex and retaliation, with the EEOC. On or about August
9, 2009, Mendez received notice from the EEOC of her right to sue under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On November 3, 2009,
Mendez filed this suit.
Discussion
A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). If the claim “is so vague or
ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading,” a
party may move for a more definite statement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The court will grant
a motion for more definite statement where it is “virtually impossible” to determine which
of a complaint’s factual allegations support its claims. See Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Tr., 77
F.3d 364, 366-67 (11th Cir. 1996). The more definite statement should present the claims
with clarity and precision, allowing the defendant to discern, and respond to, the claims.
See id.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain enough facts, accepted
as true, to state a plausible claim to relief; merely reciting the elements of a cause of action
will not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Sinaltrainal v. Coca-
Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). A claim is plausible when the plaintiff

T h e c om p la in t is un c le a r a s to w h a t e x te n t M e nd e z ha d an eq u ity in te re s t in W W R E to b e g in w ith .

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 6 of 16

P a g e 6 o f 16

pleads facts which allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. See id. Although the court must accept well-pled facts
as true, the court is not required to accept the plaintiff’s legal conclusions. See id.; Waters
Edge Living, LLC v. RSUI Indemnity Co., 355 Fed. Appx. 318, 320 (11th Cir. 2009). The
moving party bears the burden to show that the complaint should be dismissed. See
Superior Energy Servs., LLC v. Boconco, Inc., 2010 WL 1267173, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 29,
2010); Vitola v. Paramount Automated Food Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 5214962, at *1 n.1
(S.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2009).
Motion for More Definite Statement
Defendants argue that many counts in the amended complaint incorporate
numerous allegations that are inapplicable to that count, rendering the complaint as a
whole vague and confusing. For example, defendants argue Mendez’s breach of implied
9
covenant claim against WWP and Rigby, which relates to the WWP partnership
agreement, incorporates allegations regarding Mendez’s termination from the Clinic.

10
In response, Mendez argues the allegations are applicable to her claim against WWP and
Rigby because WWP and the Clinic shared common leadership, including Rigby, and her
removal from WWP was justified by her wrongful termination from the Clinic. The court
agrees. To the extent that defendants understand, but disagree with, Mendez’s claims,
their arguments are better suited to a motion to dismiss, not a motion for more definite
statement.
In addition, defendants argue that some paragraphs in the complaint contain
subparagraphs, in violation of the requirement that allegations be “simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). The court notes, however, that Rule 8(d)(1) further states
that “[n]o technical form is required.” Notwithstanding the subparagraphs, the court
considers defendants’ detailed motion to dismiss as a good indication that they are fully

9
D e fe n d a n ts p re v io u s ly m o ve d fo r a m o re d e f in ite s ta tem e n t (d o c . 2 5 ) , w h ich th e c o u r t g ra n te d (d o c .
3 2 ) . M e nd e z s u b s e qu en t ly f ile d an am en d e d c om p la in t (d o c . 3 7 ) .

C o un t X V o f th e c om p la in t .

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 7 of 16

P a g e 7 o f 16

capable of discerning, and responding to, Mendez’s claims.
See Anderson, 77 F.3d 366-
11
367. Accordingly, the motion for more definite statement will be denied.
Motion to Dismiss – “Many” Claims
Defendants begin their motion to dismiss with a recitation of the Iqbal standard,
arguing that the court should dismiss “many of the Counts” because “many of [Mendez’s]
claims” are not plausible. (Doc. 52.) Defendants’ sparse argument fails to identify which
claims defendants are seeking the dismissal of. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1); Superior
Energy Servs., LLC, 2010 WL 1267173, at *5; Vitola, 2009 WL 5214962, at *1 n.1.
Motion to Dismiss – Medical Examination Claims
In Counts III and IV, Mendez alleges that the Clinic required Mendez to submit to
a medical examination, which was neither job-related nor consistent with business
necessity, in violation of federal and Florida law. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4); Florida Civil
Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), FLA. STAT . § 760.10 et seq.
Defendants claim that Counts
12
III and IV merely duplicate Mendez disability discrimination claims in Counts I and II.
Defendants rely on 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(1), which provides: “The prohibition against
discrimination as referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall include medical
examinations and inquiries.” Subsection (a) states the general rule prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Thus, according to
defendants, violation of the prohibition against medical examination is merely evidence of
disability discrimination, rather than a separate and distinct injury. The Eleventh Circuit,
however, has recognized an employee’s private right to sue to enforce the prohibition
against medical examinations under §12112(d)(4). See Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics

11
T h e c ou r t d o e s n o t e n d o rs e M e n d e z ’s u s e o f s u bp a ra g rap h s . H ow e ve r , th e c o u r t h a s a lre a d y
g ra n ted o n e m o tio n fo r m o re d e f in ite s ta tem e n t , a n d f in d s th a t g ran t in g an o th e r w ou ld c au s e u n n e c e s s a ry
d e la y.

12
4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 1 2 (d ) (4 ) (A ) p ro v id e s : “A c o ve re d e n t ity s h a ll n o t req u ire a m ed ic a l e x am in a t io n a nd
s h a ll n o t m a k e inq u ir ie s o f a n em p lo ye e a s to w h e the r s u c h em p lo ye e is a n in d iv id u a l w ith a d isa b ility o r a s
to th e n a tu re o r s e ve r i ty o f th e d isa b ility, u n le s s s u ch e x am in a t io n o r in qu iry is s h ow n to be jo b – re la te d a nd
c o n s is te n t w ith b u s in e s s n e c e s s ity.”

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 8 of 16

P a g e 8 o f 16

Huntsville, Inc., 593 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, as to Count III, the court
13
finds that Mendez’s medical examination claim is separate from her disability discrimination
claim. As to Count IV, however, Mendez provides no authority for a separate claim of
medical examination under the FCRA.
Instead, Mendez cites to statutes prohibiting
14
discrimination and retaliation, which do not mention medical examination at all. See FLA .
STAT . §§ 760.10(1) (discrimination), 760.10(7) (retaliation). Thus, Count IV, Mendez’s
medical examination claim under the FCRA must be dismissed.15
Defendants also argue that Mendez waived her medical examination claim by
signing the Clinic agreement, which incorporated the Clinic’s bylaws. Specifically, Section
21.2 of the bylaws provides: “The Board may require a physical or psychological
examination if it, in its sole discretion, considers such to be helpful in determining the
suitability of a physician to remain in practice in this corporation.” (Doc. 37-4.) Defendants
rely on Bledsoe v. Palm Beach County Soil and Water Conservation Dist, 133 F.3d 816
(11th Cir. 1998) for the proposition that ADA rights may be waived. Defendants reliance
on Bledsoe is misplaced, however; as Mendez notes, Bledsoe dealt with the waiver of
rights, after the fact, as part of a voluntary settlement agreement. Id. at 819. An
employee’s rights under ADA may not be prospectively waived. See Alexander v. Gardner-

13
T h e H a r r iso n c o u r t ’s a n a lys is fo c u s e d o n § 1 21 1 2 (d ) (2 ) , p ro h ib it in g m ed ic a l e xam ina t io n s o f job
app lic a n ts , b u t the re a s on in g a p p lie s e q u a lly to § 1 2 1 12 (d ) (4 ) , p ro h ib it in g m ed ic a l e x am in a t ions o f em p loyees .
S e e H a r r is o n , 5 9 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 2 -1 2 1 4 ; C o n ro y v . N ew Y o rk S ta te D e p t . o f C o r r . S e rv s . , 3 33 F .3 d 8 8 , 9 4 (2d
C ir . 2 0 03 ) (h o ld in g th a t em p lo ye e s m a y b r in g a n a c t io n un d e r § 1 2 1 1 2 (d ) (4 ) re ga rd le s s o f w he th e r th e y a re
d is a b led ) ; F re d e n b u rg v . C o n tra C o s ta C o u n ty D e p t. o f H e a lth S e rv s ., 1 7 2 F .3d 1 1 7 6 , 1 1 82 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 )
(s am e ) ; C o s s e t te v . M in n . P ow e r an d L ig h t , 1 8 8 F .3 d 9 6 4 , 9 6 9 (8 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) (s am e ) ; R o e v . C he y e n n e M tn .
C o n f . R e s o r t , In c . , 1 2 4 F .3 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 8 (1 0 th C ir . 19 9 7 ) (sam e ) .

14
T h e c o u r t n o te s th a t “F lo r id a c o u r ts c o n s tru e th e FCR A in c o n fo rm ity w ith th e AD A .” Iz iza r ry v . M id
F la . C om m . S e rv s , In c . , 2 0 0 9 W L 21 3 51 1 3 , a t *2 (M .D . F la . J u ly 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 ) ; L e n a rd v . A .L .P .H .A . “A B e g in n in g ”
In c . , 945 S o . 2 d 6 1 8 , 6 2 1 (F la . 2d D C A 2 0 0 6 ) ; W im b e r ly v . S e c . T e ch . G rou p , In c . , 8 6 6 S o . 2 d 1 4 6 , 1 4 7 (F la .
4 th D C A 2 0 04 ) . A c c o rd in g ly, th e c o u r t ’s in te rp re ta t ion o f h a n d ic a p d is c r im in a t io n , a s p roh ib ite d in F L A . S T A T .
§ § 7 6 0 .1 0 , co n fo rm s to th e AD A . M en d e z h a s p ro v id e d n o a u th o r ity, h ow e ve r , s u gg e s t in g th a t th e FC R A
p ro v id e s a s e p a ra te r ig h t o f a c t io n fo r m e d ic a l e x am in a t io n s .

15
D e fe n d a n ts h a ve n o t m o v e d to d ism is s M e nd e z ’s F lo r id a law c la im s fo r d is a b ility d is c r im in a t ion
(C o u n t I I) o r re ta lia t io n fo r opp o s in g d is a b ility d is c r im in a t io n (C o un t X ) . T o th e e x te n t M e n d e z ’s a lle g a t io n s
re g a rd in g m e d ic a l e x am in a t ion s up p o r t a c la im u n d e r F lo r id a law fo r d is c r im in a t ion o r re ta lia t io n , th a t c la im
is p re s e rve d in C o u n ts I I a n d X , w h ic h in c o rp o ra te th e s am e fa c tu a l a lle g a tio n s a s C o u n t IV .

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 9 of 16

P a g e 9 o f 16

Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 51-52, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1021 (1974) (“[A]n employee’s rights under
Title VII are not susceptible of prospective waiver.”); Bledsoe, 133 F.3d at 819 (applying
the Gardner-Denver analysis of Title VII rights to the ADA); Sullivan v. River Valley School
Dist., 20 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1126 (W .D. Mich. 1998).
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to
16
dismiss Count III, Mendez’s medical examination claim under federal law, will be denied.
Motion to Dismiss – Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Claims
In Counts V and VI, Mendez alleges that the Clinic discriminated against her
because of her sex in violation of federal and Florida law.
See Title VII of the Civil Rights
17
Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2, et seq.; FLA . STAT . § 760.10 et
seq. Similarly, in Counts VIII and IX, Mendez alleges that the Clinic unlawfully retaliated
against her for opposing sex discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3; FLA . STAT .
§ 760.10(7). Defendants argue Mendez has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies
as to these claims. See Green v. Elixir Industries, Inc., 152 Fed. Appx. 838, 840 (11th Cir.
2005). Defendants do not dispute that Mendez timely filed a charge of discrimination with
the EEOC; rather, they argue that the charge failed to allege any facts that would put the
Clinic on notice of her sex discrimination and retaliation claims. According to defendants,
the charge discusses only facts relevant to a claim of disability discrimination and
retaliation. In response, Mendez argues the Clinic had sufficient notice of her Title VII
claim, because her sex-based claims were within “the scope of the EEOC investigation that
could reasonably be expected to grow out of the initial charges.” See Chanda v.
Engelhardt/ICC, 234 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2000). The court agrees. Whereas, in
Chanda, the court found that an investigation could not reasonably be expected to
encompass retaliation based on national origin, as nothing in the plaintiff’s charge
mentioned such discrimination or a claim under Title VII, see id., in this case, Mendez’s

16
N o tw ith s ta n d in g , e ve n i f th e law re c o g n ize d a p ro s p e c tive w a ive r , th e c o u r t w o u ld n o t f in d the
la n g u a g e in th is c a s e s u f f ic ien t to c o n s t itu te a k n ow in g w a ive r o f M e n d e z ’s r igh ts u n d e r th e A D A . S ee
B led s o e , 13 3 F .3 d a t 8 19 .

17
T it le V I I an d th e FC R A a re c o n s tru e d s im ila r ly. S ee A lb ra v . A d v an , In c . , 4 9 0 F .3 d 8 26 , 8 3 4 (1 1 th
C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) .

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 10 of 16

P a g e 1 0 o f 16

charge of discrimination gave notice of her claim under Title VII by stating: “The Clinic’s
actions were done in violation of Dr. Mendez’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act; the Florida Civil Rights Act, Title VII and in retaliation for her complaint that she
believed her federally protected rights were being violated.” (Doc. 37-1.) Thus, the court
finds that the EEOC investigation of Mendez’s discrimination charge reasonably could be
expected to encompass claims of sex discrimination and retaliation for opposing sex
discrimination. See Chanda, 234 F.3d at 1225. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to
dismiss Counts V, VI, VIII and IX, containing Mendez’s sex-based discrimination and
retaliation claims, will be denied.
Motion to Dismiss – Breach of Clinic Agreement Claim
In Count XI, Mendez alleges that the Clinic breached the Clinic agreement by
suspending and terminating her without cause, and failing to grant her the procedural
protections provided by the Clinic agreement.
The interpretation of an unambiguous
18
contract is a matter of law. See Lawyer Title Ins. Corp. v. JDC (Am.) Corp., 52 F.3d 1575,
1580 (11th Cir. 1995). The court accords a realistic, plain-language meaning to the words
of the contract, and construes the contract as a whole, giving effect to all its provisions, in
a manner consistent with reason and probability. See Taylor v. Taylor, 1 So. 3d 348, 350
(Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Ospina-Baraya v. Heiligers, 909 So. 2d 465, 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
As to Section 25.1.d of the agreement, Mendez alleges that the Clinic failed to have
the medical director inform her “of the general nature of the charges against [] her, and
[invite her] to discuss, explain or refute them.” (Doc. 37-4.) Defendants argue that,
according to Mendez’s own allegations, the medical director met with Mendez on June 6,
2008 and Mendez refuted the charges in her June 4, 2008 letter to the Clinic. These
allegations, however, do not refute Mendez’s allegation that the medical director failed to
invite her to discuss, explain or refute the charges after he advised her of the charges;
thus, Mendez’s factual allegations, accepted as true, state a plausible claim for breach of
the Clinic agreement. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count

18
S p e c if ic a lly, th e d is p u te d p ro v is io n s a re in th e C lin ic ’s b ylaw s , w h ic h a re in c o rp o ra te d b y re fe re n ce
in to th e C lin ic a g re em en t.

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 11 of 16

P a g e 1 1 o f 16

XI, Mendez’s breach of Clinic agreement claim, will be denied. Defendants may raise their
arguments as to the other provisions on motion for summary judgment.
Motion to Dismiss – Breach of Partnership Agreement Claim
In Count XIV, Mendez alleges that WWP and Rigby breached the WWP partnership
agreement by expelling her. Defendants rely on the promissory note Mendez made in
exchange for her interest in WWP, arguing that, by the note’s plain language,“termination
for any reason whatsoever or for no reason at all, from [the Clinic,] will constitute
withdrawal from [WWP].” The note also provided that Mendez would vest in equity upon
completion of ten years with the partnership and payment of full of the note; and, if Mendez
terminated from WWP prior to vesting, she would receive only the refund of her principal.
Mendez argues that these provisions were unenforceable; or, alternatively, that if the
provisions were enforceable, her removal from WWP was still a breach of the partnership
agreement because her removal from the Clinic was wrongful. Mendez offers the court no
support for either proposition. Next, Mendez claims that WWP had treated her as if she
were fully vested at the time of the sale of real property from WWP to WWRE. In support
of her argument, Mendez alleges that WWP provided her with a written statement
confirming the value of her proportionate interest; offered her the option to cash out as
early as 2006, and paid her $40,000 to cover her expected capital gains tax. As with her
previous arguments, it is unclear to the court how these allegations lead Mendez to
conclude that Rigby or WWP breached the partnership agreement.
As defendants note,
19
at no point does Mendez even identify the provision in the partnership agreement which
WWP and Rigby allegedly breached. Accordingly, Count XIV, Mendez’s claim of breach
of the WWP partnership agreement, will be dismissed with leave to amend.
Motion to Dismiss – Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Claims
In Counts XII and XV, Mendez alleges breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing by, respectively, the Clinic as to the Clinic agreement, and Rigby and WWP as

19
F o r th a t m a tte r , it’s u n c le a r w h y th e s e a lle g a t io n s le a d M e n de z to b e lie ve s h e w a s tre a te d a s if s he
w e re fu lly ve s te d . T he c o u r t re ite ra te s th a t th e p rom is s o ry no te s ta te s th a t th e te rm “ve s tin g ” is d e f in e d in the
s am e m a nn e r a s th a t p ro v id e d in th e W W P p a r tn e rs h ip a g re em e n t , w h ic h M e n d e z h a s fa ile d to p ro v id e .

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 12 of 16

P a g e 1 2 o f 16

to the WWP partnership agreement. Under Florida law, every contract contains an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing designed to protect the parties’ reasonable
expectations. See Centurion Air Cargo, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Co., 420 F.3d 1146,
1151 (11th Cir. 2005). “A breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is
not an independent cause of action, but attaches to the performance of a specif ic
contractual obligation.” Id. A breach of the implied covenant claim may be dismissed as
redundant if the conduct violating the implied covenant is duplicative of the breach of
contract claim. See Merill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Performance Mach. Sys. U.S.A.,
Inc., 2005 WL 975773, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2005). Indeed, this court has determined
that, “in order to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, [p]laintiffs must identify the specific contract term(s) giving rise to the implied duty
of good faith and also allege how [d]efendants breached their implied duty, alleging facts
different from those giving rise to the breach of contract claim.” See Stallworth v. Hartford
Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2711597, at *6 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2006).
Defendants argue that Mendez has failed to allege facts on this claim different from
those in her breach of contract claims. The court agrees. Mendez’s claim for breach of
implied duty against the Clinic is based on her allegation that she was “illegally harassed,
summarily suspended, wrongfully terminated as an employee and improperly removed as
a shareholder,” the same allegation giving rise to her breach of Clinic agreement claim.
Similarly, Mendez’s claim for breach of implied duty against Rigby and WWP is based on
her allegation that she was “illegally, wrongfully and/or unfairly expelled from [WWP],” the
same allegation giving rise to her breach of the WWP partnership agreement claim. In
addition, Mendez fails to identify the specific terms in either contract giving rise to the
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. See Stallworth, 2006 WL 2711597, at *6. In
response, Mendez argues that, in Stallworth, the court denied a motion to dismiss a breach
of implied duty claim, despite the plaintiffs’ failure to specify a contract term giving rise to
the duty or to allege a different factual basis. See id. However, as defendants note, the
Stallworth court denied the motion to dismiss only because it could not “conclude beyond
all doubt that Plaintiffs can prove no set of facts that would entitle them to relief.” Id. After

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 13 of 16

P a g e 1 3 o f 16

Stallworth was decided, the Supreme Court retired the no-set-of-facts test. See Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). In
light of the more stringent pleading requirements of Iqbal and Twombly, Counts XII and XV,
containing Mendez’s claims of breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, will be
dismissed without prejudice to amend.
Motion to Dismiss – Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim as to the Clinic
In Count XIII, Mendez alleges that Rigby and Gieseman, in their capacities as
officers of the Clinic, owed fiduciary duties to her and breached those duties. Defendants
argue that Rigby and Gieseman owed fiduciary duties to Mendez only in her capacity as
a shareholder of the Clinic, not as an employee; thus, Mendez’s claim should be dismissed
because it focuses on Mendez’s termination as an employee of the Clinic. See Orlinsky
v. Patraka, 971 So. 2d 796, 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“Fiduciary duties are not implicated
when the issue involves the right of the minority stockholder qua employee under an
employment contract”) (citations omitted). In response, Mendez offers only generic
authority for the proposition that corporate officers owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation
and its shareholders. The court agrees with defendants. Accordingly, Count XIII,
Mendez’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty as to the Clinic, will be dismissed without
prejudice to amend.
Motion to Dismiss – Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim as to WWP
In Count XVI, Mendez alleges that Rigby, in his capacity as a partner in WWP, owed
fiduciary duties to her and breached those duties. Defendants argue that the claim fails
to meet the Iqbal standard. As defendants note, Florida law limits a partner’s fiduciary
duties to other partners, and Mendez has failed to identify which of the specified duties
provided under Florida law defendants allegedly breached. See FLA. STAT . § 620.8404(2)
and (3). In response, Mendez argues that her allegation that Rigby owed her unspecified
fiduciary duties and “was directly involved in the illegal and wrongful termination of
[Mendez] as an employee, her termination as a Clinic shareholder, and, consequently her
wrongful expulsion from [WWP]” suffices to state a claim. (Doc. 37, at ¶ 258.) The court
disagrees; Mendez’s allegations consist of mere conclusory statements. See Iqbal, 129

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 14 of 16

P a g e 1 4 o f 16

S. Ct. at 1949. Accordingly, Count XVI, Mendez’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty as to
WWP, will be dismissed with leave to amend.
Motion to Dismiss – Declaratory Judgment Claims
In Counts XVII and XVIII, Mendez seeks declaratory judgments against the Clinic
and against WWP and WWRE regarding the parties rights and obligations under the Clinic
agreement and the WWP partnership agreement. “The Declaratory Judgment Act
provides that a court may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested
party, not that it must do so.” MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 594 U.S. 118, 136, 127
S. Ct. 764, 766 (2007) (internal marks omitted). The Act is “an enabling Act, which confers
discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right on the litigant.” Wilton v. Seven Falls
Co., 515 U.S. 277, 287, 115 S. Ct. 2137, 2143 (1995); see also Ameritas Variable Life Ins.
Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). The purpose of the act is to provide
relief from uncertainty with respect to rights and other legal relations. See Eisenberg v.
Std. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 3667086, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2009). A determination of
“whether a contract was adequately performed is unrelated to the purpose behind the
Declaratory Judgment Act.” Id.; see also Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Maschmeyer
Landscapers, Inc., 2007 WL 2811080, *2 (E.D. Mo. 2007).
It appears that Mendez’s declaratory judgment claims are, to some extent,
redundant with her breach of contract claims. For example, Mendez alleges in Count XVII:
“Dr. Mendez maintains that she has the right to remain an employee and shareholder of
the Clinic. The Clinic maintains that it had the right to term inate and remove her as an
employee and shareholder, respectively.” (Doc. 37-4, at ¶ 265.) Similarly, in Count XVIII,
Mendez alleges: “Dr. Mendez maintains that she has the right to remain a general partner
of [WWP], which maintains it had the right to expel her as a general partner.” (Doc. 37-4,
at ¶ 272.) Although Mendez describes her request as for a declaration of the parties’ rights
under the contracts, she effectively seeks a declaration of breach and her damages. See
Eisenberg, 2009 WL 3667086, at *2. To that extent, the court concludes that declaratory
relief is inappropriate; instead, the court will consider the disputed provisions, and
Mendez’s damages, if any, when it considers her breach of contract claims.

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 15 of 16

P a g e 1 5 o f 16

Mendez, however, also argues that, even if the court found no breach of either the
Clinic or WWP agreements, she would be entitled to a determination of her equitable
interest in each entity, entitlement to profits, and valuation of amounts returned to her. To
that extent, Mendez’s declaratory judgment claims are not subsumed into her contract
claims. Accordingly, Count XVII and XVIII, containing Mendez’s declaratory judgment
claims, will be dismissed without prejudice to an amendment.
In amending her complaint,
20
Mendez should specify, as to the Clinic, WWP and WWRE, the factual basis for her claim
that she is entitled to this determination.
Mendez’s Motion for Reconsideration
Mendez also moves for reconsideration of the court’s order granting defendants’
request for leave to reply. Mendez claims that defendants’ reply allowed them to unfairly
get the “last word,” and to “insert[] their own facts.” (Doc. 75.) As to Mendez’s first
argument, the court notes that its local rules provide for a reply memorandum on good
cause shown. N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(C). Also, on any motion, one party is always going to
have the last word, and on a motion to dismiss, defendants have the burden so it makes
sense they would be permitted to file a brief reply to plaintiff’s response. See Superior
Energy Servs., LLC, 2010 WL 1267173, at *5; Vitola, 2009 WL 5214962, at *1 n.1.
Regarding Mendez’s second argument, that defendants inserted their own facts, the court
disagrees. As the court discussed in considering defendants’ motion to dismiss Mendez’s
breach of contract claim against the Clinic, the court interpreted the defendants statement
regarding a typographical error to refer to an error in their motion to dismiss, not in the
Clinic agreement. Accordingly, Mendez’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.
In conclusion, defendants’ motion for a more definite statement or, in the alternative,
motion to dismiss (doc. 52) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. To the extent
defendants’ motion is for a more definite statement, it is DENIED; to the extent the motion
requests a dismissal, it is GRANTED as to Counts IV, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII and XVIII

20
D e fe n d a n ts a ls o s e e k a n aw a rd o f c o s ts a s so c ia te d w ith d e fe n d in g a g a in s t the d e c la ra to ry
ju d gm e n t a c t io n s . S e e F L A . S T A T . § 8 6 .0 1 ( “T h e c ou r t m a y aw a rd c o s ts a s a re e q u ita b le .” ) . D e fe n d a n ts ’
re q ue s t fo r c o s ts is d e n ie d .

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T

Case 3:09-cv-00495-MCR-EMT Document 90 Filed 08/25/10 Page 16 of 16

with leave to amend as outlined in the order, within 14 days,
and DENIED as to Counts
21
Defendants’ response to plaintiff’s amended complaint is due
III, V, VI, VIII, IX, and XI.
22
14 days after the complaint is filed. Mendez’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 77) is
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2010.

P a g e 1 6 o f 16

s/ M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
P la in tif f is no t in v ite d to am e nd th e c om p la in t, o the r th an a s s p e c if ic a lly o u t lin e d in th is o rd e r . N o
o th e r a d d it io n s o r c o r re c t io n s a re e n v is io n e d o r p e rm it te d .

D e fe n d an ts d id n o t m o ve fo r th e d ism is s a l o f C o u n ts I , I I , V I I a n d X .

C a s e N o : 3 :0 9 c v3 45 /M C R /EM T