[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-281686-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-281686-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","united-states-district-court-order-motion-to-dismiss","United States District Court - Order - Motion to Dismiss","","A federal court order addresses Defendant Galleon Companies LLC’s motion to dismiss brought against Plaintiffs Adam Skinner and Organic Spaces, LLC. The dispute arises from two contracts, including an employment agreement and a separate services arrangement tied to monthly compensation, where Plaintiffs allege nonpayment. The court applies the plausibility pleading standard and evaluates whether each count survives, granting in part and denying in part. The order also discusses FLSA unpaid-wage pleading requirements and related precedent.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/united-states-district-court-order-motion-to-dismiss/281686/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/united-states-district-court-order-motion-to-dismiss/281686.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Oliver","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-26","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",17,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What motion did the court decide in this order?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The court decided Defendant Galleon Companies LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, ruling it was granted in part and denied in part.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What contracts does the dispute stem from?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The claims arise from an employment agreement between Skinner and Galleon and a separate arrangement where Organic Spaces agreed to “serve as a qualifier” for monthly compensation.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How did the court evaluate the FLSA unpaid-wage claim?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The court held that the complaint’s allegations of an employment relationship, involvement in interstate commerce, and failure to pay minimum wages were sufficient for plausibly pleading an FLSA unpaid-wage claim.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},281686,1789567454,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,113,117,122],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":55,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":114,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":120},8796095461610,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION  \nADAM SKINNER, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;  \nAND ORGANIC SPACES, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,  \nPlaintiffs,  \nv.  \nGALLEON COMPANIES LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,  \nDefendant.  /  \nCase No. 2:25-cv-369-KCD-DNF  \nORDER  \nBefore the Court is Defendant Galleon Companies LLC’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 11.) 1 Plaintiffs Adam Skinner and Organic Spaces, LLC have responded in opposition (Doc. 30), making this matter ripe. For the reasons below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.  \n1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.  \nI. Background 2  \nThis lawsuit stems from two contracts. Skinner had an employment agreement with Galleon where he received $130,000 annually, along with bonuses, in exchange for his services. (Doc. 5 at 2.) Separately, Skinner’s company, Organic Spaces, agreed to “serve as a qualifier” for Galleon in exchange for $3,000 each month. According to the complaint, Skinner and Organic Spaces provided services to Galleon for about 13 months, but Galleon did not make the payments. (Id.)  \nAs a result, Skinner emailed Galleon requesting payment, followed by a demand letter for $80,000 in unpaid salary, $81,000 in bonuses, and $60,000 for “claims for breach of the Contracting Agreement.” (Doc. 5 at 15.) Galleon ended Skinner’s employment following the letter. ([Id.](Id. at)[ at](Id. at) 7.)  \nPlaintiffs then sued, alleging that Galleon violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (Count I), breached its agreement with Skinner and violated the Florida Minimum Wage Act (Count II), discharged Skinner in retaliation (Count III) , was unjustly enriched (Count IV), and breached its agreement with Organic Spaces (Count V) . (Doc. 5.) None of these claims should survive, according to Galleon, because the complaint is a “shotgun pleading” that lacks the factual detail needed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 11.)  \n2 “At the motion to dismiss stage, all well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, and the reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F. 3d 1271, 1273 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999) .  \nPlaintiffs disagree that the complaint is deficient but alternatively request leave to amend to address any factual deficiencies. (See Doc. 30.)  \nII. Legal Standard  \nTo survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state a facially plausible claim for relief.” Galette v.  \nGoodell, No. 23-10896, 2023 WL 7391697, at *3 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2023) . “A claim is facially plausible if it pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.“[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 (2007) .  \nWhen reviewing a motion to dismiss, courts must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U. S. 89, 93-94 (2007) . Legal conclusions, however,“are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v.  \nIqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 664 (2009) . And “conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual deductions or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 326 F. 3d 1183, 1185 (11th Cir. 2003) .  \nA motion to dismiss fails where the complaint provides facts that raise a right to relief above the speculative level.  \nIII. Discussion  \nCount I: Unpaid Wages  \nAccording to Galleon, Skinner’s Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)  \nclaim fails because he did not provide sufficient","cbCaibmFHgHu5Ie6","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibmFHgHu5Ie6","pdf",162627,13,"English","# Background\n## Contracts and alleged nonpayment\n# Legal Standard\n## Plausibility and accepted facts\n# Discussion\n## Count I: Unpaid Wages\n## Count II: Breach of Contract and Chapter 448","[{\"question\":\"What motion did the court decide in this order?\",\"answer\":\"The court decided Defendant Galleon Companies LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, ruling it was granted in part and denied in part.\"},{\"question\":\"What contracts does the dispute stem from?\",\"answer\":\"The claims arise from an employment agreement between Skinner and Galleon and a separate arrangement where Organic Spaces agreed to “serve as a qualifier” for monthly compensation.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the court evaluate the FLSA unpaid-wage claim?\",\"answer\":\"The court held that the complaint’s allegations of an employment relationship, involvement in interstate commerce, and failure to pay minimum wages were sufficient for plausibly pleading an FLSA unpaid-wage claim.\"}]","United States District Court - Order - Motion to Dismiss | PDF"]