Supermedia LLC v. Kantaras & Andreopoulos
8:11-cv-02328
M.D. Fla.Mar 15, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Supermedia LLC sues Defendants for unpaid advertising services (breach of contract, quantum meruit, open account, and account stated).
- Contracts/advertising agreements signed by Andreopoulos on behalf of defendants; multiple accounts attributed to different entities (Law Office of J.D. Andreopoulos, Dean Kantaras PA, Kantaras & Andreopoulos, and K Dean Kantaras PA).
- Total allegedly due across accounts is $337,209.81, excluding late fees, interest, and attorneys’ fees.
- Counts: I (breach of contract); II (quantum meruit); III (open account); IV (account stated).
- Court addresses defenses to dismissal, allowing most claims to proceed while dismissing Count II as to Kantaras & Andreopoulos (K&A).
- Defendants must answer within ten days at the end of the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida §559.715 applies to this debt | Not applicable; debt is commercial, not consumer. | §559.715 requires notice for assignment under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. | Inapplicable; statute targets consumer debts, not commercial advertising debts. |
| Whether Florida §201.08 stamp tax applies | Statutes do not render these advertising debts subject to stamp tax. | §201.08 taxes assignments and certain promissory instruments. | Not applicable; advertising contracts are not unconditional promises to pay under §201.08. |
| Whether the breach claim (Count I) requires attaching a contract | Not required to attach the contract at this stage; complaint suffices. | Attachment required to state a contract claim. | Dismissal not warranted; complaint can proceed; discovery will clarify contract details. |
| Whether quantum meruit (Count II) is compatible with a contract claim | Claims may be pled in the alternative. | Unjust enrichment cannot stand where an express contract exists. | Count II dismissed as to Kantaras & Andreopoulos (K&A) but remains viable against others unless no contract exists; leave to amend if contract否 later proven. |
| Whether Counts III and IV should be dismissed for uniform damages requests | Damages and who owes what are issues for later stages; pleadings sufficient. | Inconsistent damages since statements show different amounts per defendant. | Not dismissed; damages must be resolved at summary judgment or trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (plausible claim standard under Twombly/Iqbal; not just conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requires plausible entitlement to relief rather than mere labels and conclusions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (requires elimination of legal conclusions and plausible factual allegations)