Mike Woods v. On Baldwin Pond, LLC , 634 F. App'x 296 ( 2015 )

Case: 15-13082 Date Filed: 12/31/2015 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13082
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cv-00726-CEM-DAB
MIKE WOODS,
Plaintiff-Counter -
Defendant Appellant,
versus
ON BALDWIN POND, LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company,
DANIEL PELLI,
individually,
Defendants-Counter -
Claimants Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 31, 2015)
Case: 15-13082 Date Filed: 12/31/2015 Page: 2 of 5
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mike Woods worked as a maintenance person at an apartment complex
owned by On Baldwin Pond, LLC (OBP). Woods lived in the same complex and
received a partial discount on his rent in exchange for his services. The parties
signed at least two lease agreements over the years, which clarified in addenda that
the discounted rent was conditioned upon Woods’ continued employment with
OBP. In January 2013, Woods successfully interviewed for a new job with a new
employer. Soon after the interview, Woods requested a new lease agreement from
OBP but failed to disclose his new employment. Unaware that Woods intended to
leave his job at the apartment complex, OBP accommodated his request and the
parties executed a new agreement. Like the previous leases, the new lease
provided for a discounted rate of rent. Unlike the previous leases, it did not
include an addendum explicitly conditioning the discounted rate upon Woods’
employment with OBP. Within days of executing that lease, Woods quit his job
with OBP.
Woods brought a lawsuit against OBP and its sole owner, Daniel Pelli,
asserting claims that are irrelevant to this appeal. In their answer, OBP and Pelli
asserted a counterclaim for fraudulent inducement under Florida law, alleging that
Woods induced OBP to enter the new lease agreement by representing that he
2
Case: 15-13082 Date Filed: 12/31/2015 Page: 3 of 5
would continue working at the apartment complex. Over the course of the
litigation, Woods filed various dispositive motions with respect to the
counterclaim, including a motion for summary judgment before trial, a motion for
judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of the defendants’ case-in-chief, and
a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after the trial. The district court
denied each of those motions and, over Woods’ objections, instructed the jury on
the fraud claim. The jury ultimately found Woods liable for fraud and awarded
$2,000.06 in damages to OBP and Pelli. Woods appealed.
Woods first contends that the district court misunderstood and misstated
Florida law regarding fraudulent inducement, which caused it to wrongly deny his
dispositive motions and to incorrectly instruct the jury. We review de novo the
district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment or judgment as a matter of
law. Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849, 851 (11th Cir. 1997).
We also review de novo the district court’s instructions to the jury “to determine
whether they misstate[d] the law.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Silver Star
Health & Rehab, 739 F.3d 579, 585 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotations omitted).
To establish fraud generally under Florida law, one must show, among other
things, that the alleged defrauder made “a false statement of material fact.” Prieto
v. Smook, Inc., 97 So. 3d 916, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quotations omitted).
Focusing on that element, Woods claims that he never affirmatively stated that he
3
Case: 15-13082 Date Filed: 12/31/2015 Page: 4 of 5
intended to continue working for OBP when they executed the new lease
agreement, but instead merely failed to mention that he was pursuing other
employment. He argues that an omission cannot support a fraudulent inducement
claim under Florida law. He is wrong. “Florida law recognizes that fraud can
occur by omission.” ZC Ins. Co. v. Brooks, 847 So. 2d 547, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA
2003); see also Berg v. Capo, 994 So. 2d 322, 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“Fraud
may be established by either an intentional misrepresentation or omission of a
material fact.”). Because the district court correctly stated and applied that rule, it
did not err in denying Woods’ dispositive motions or instructing the jury.
Woods next contends that the defendants’ counterclaim did not satisfy our
pleading standards. He argues that the defendants alleged only that Woods made
an affirmative misrepresentation, which did not put him on notice that they would
attempt to show fraud by omission or concealment. He asserts that the district
court effectively amended the defendants’ pleadings by construing their claim for
fraudulent inducement as a claim for fraudulent omission or concealment, which
prejudiced his ability to establish a defense. He is wrong again. To begin with,
Florida law does not recognize a stark distinction between fraud by commission
and fraud by omission. As the Florida Supreme Court has explained, “[W]here
failure to disclose a material fact is calculated to induce a false belief, the
distinction between concealment and affirmative representations is tenuous.”
4
Case: 15-13082 Date Filed: 12/31/2015 Page: 5 of 5
Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 628 (Fla. 1985). That is because “[b]oth
proceed from the same motives and are attended with the same consequences; both
are violative of the principles of fair dealings and good faith; both are calculated to
produce the same result; and, in fact, both essentially have the same effect.” Id.
The defendants’ pleadings alleged that Woods “fraudulently induced [them]
into issuing a new lease agreement.” Although their factual allegations suggested
that Woods affirmatively misrepresented his intention to continue working at the
apartment complex, the defendants’ pleadings fairly apprised Woods of their
claim. That is sufficient under our system of notice pleading. See Lombard’s, Inc.
v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 753 F.2d 974, 975 (11th Cir. 1985) (“Under notice pleading
the complaint need only give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.”) (quotations omitted); see also Ziemba v.
Cascade Int’l, Inc., 256 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires a party to plead fraud with particularity,
“must not abrogate the concept of notice pleading”) (quotations omitted). In short,
the defendants adequately pleaded a claim for fraudulent inducement, in the form
of fraud by omission, and the district court did not amend their counterclaim by
construing it as such.
AFFIRMED.
5