Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The Barber Vintage Motorsports Museum v. Frost

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division

June 19, 2018

CRAIG FROST, et al., Defendants.



         This matter is before the court on the Motion to Dismiss Craig Frost and Air Charter Professionals, Inc.'s Counterclaim. (Doc. # 13). Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant The Barber Vintage Motorsports Museum (alternatively referred to as “Plaintiff, ” “Counter-Defendant, ” or “Barber”) contends that the counterclaim asserted against it is due to be dismissed on various grounds. (Id.). The Motion is fully briefed. (Docs. # 13, 16, 17). For the reasons explained below, the Motion (Doc. # 13) is due to be granted.

         I. Background

         On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and to Quiet Title. (Doc. # 1-1). Defendants Craig Frost (“Frost”) and Air Charter Professionals, Inc. (“ACPI” and, collectively “Defendants” or “Counter-Claimants”) removed this action to federal court on January 17, 2018. (Doc. # 1). On January 24, 2018, Defendants filed their Answer, which included a counterclaim alleging a property interest in the 2004 MTT Y2K Turbine Motorcycle (“Motorcycle”) that is the subject of this case. (Doc. # 3). Plaintiff filed its Answer to Defendants' Counterclaim on February 14, 2018. (Doc. # 7).

         On May 16, 2018, Defendants filed an Amended Answer, Counterclaim, and Third Party Claim against non-party Mecum Auction, Inc. (“Mecum”). (Doc. # 11). This Amended Answer also added a “Counterclaim against Barber, ” which requests that a judgment be entered against Barber for actual, compensatory, and punitive damages along with attorney's fees and costs. (Id. at ¶¶ 58-70). In the counterclaim, Frost and ACPI allege that Barber purchased and took possession of the Motorcycle with actual or constructive knowledge of its disputed title, failed to conduct a proper title search before taking possession of the vehicle, and willfully ignored the results of a title search that showed or would have showed ACPI was the rightful owner. (Id. at ¶¶ 59-61). Counter-Claimants further allege that Barber had notice and constructive knowledge that Allen Smith, the owner and seller of the Motorcycle through Mecum's auction, had previously sold other vehicles with questionable (and sometimes verifiably fraudulent) ownership and that, despite this knowledge, Barber persisted in its possession and claim to the Motorcycle. (Id. at ¶¶ 62-63).

         In their Counterclaim, Frost and APCI also claim that Barber has failed to: (1) demand presentment and execution of an assignment and warranty of title to the Motorcycle as required by Alabama Code § 32-16-44;[1] (2) register the license to the Motorcycle as required by Alabama Code § 32-6-61; and (3) register the title to the Motorcycle as required by Alabama Code § 32-8-30. (Id. at ¶¶ 64-66). They allege that Barber has willfully failed to register the Motorcycle's license and title because it knows or has reason to know that such a registration would be denied due to ACPI's prior ownership title. (Id. at ¶ 67). Counter-Claimants also assert that Barber has willfully refused to deliver possession of the Motorcycle to ACPI despite numerous demands to do so, Barber's continued use of possession of the Motorcycle is intended to permanently deprive ACPI of its possession, and these actions constitute a felony under Alabama Code § 32-8-81. (Id. at ¶¶ 68-69). On May 30, 2018, Counter-Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that, as stated, the counterclaim alleges no discernable cause of action. (Doc. # 13). Below, the court evaluates the form and allegations of the counterclaim.

         II. Standard of Review

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that the complaint provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleaser is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). However, the complaint must include enough facts “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Pleadings that contain nothing more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” do not meet Rule 8 standards, nor do pleadings suffice that are based merely upon “labels and conclusions” or “naked assertion[s]” without supporting factual allegations. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts view the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Watts v. Fla. Int'l. Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007).

         To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although “[t]he plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement, '” the complaint must demonstrate “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A plausible claim for relief requires “enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” to support the claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

         In considering a motion to dismiss, a court should “1) eliminate any allegations in the complaint that are merely legal conclusions; and 2) where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, ‘assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.'” Kivisto v. Miller, Candield, Paddock & Stone, PLC, 413 Fed. App'x 136, 138 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Am. Dental Assn. v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010)). That task is context specific and, to survive the motion, the allegations must permit the court based on its “judicial experience and common sense . . . to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Further, “courts may infer from the factual allegations in the complaint ‘obvious alternative explanation[s], ' which suggest lawful conduct rather than the unlawful conduct the plaintiff would ask the court to infer.” Am. Dental, 605 F.3d at 1290 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 682). If the court determines that well-pleaded facts, accepted as true, do not state a claim that is plausible, the claims are due to be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

         III. Analysis

         Barber argues that Frost's and APCI's counterclaim contains contradictory statements, does not abide by applicable pleading standards, and is improperly based on alleged violations of Alabama law. (Docs. # 13, 17). Counter-Claimants maintain that contradictions in their pleadings are not grounds for their dismissal and that Alabama law recognizes civil causes of action for criminal violations of the Alabama Code. (Doc. # 16). For the reasons explained below, the court agrees with Barber that the counterclaim against Barber leaves a reader of the Amended Answer and Counterclaim (Doc. # 11 at ¶¶ 58-70) wondering what specific claim or claims Counter-Claimants are attempting to allege in their pleadings.

         A. The Counterclaim Against Barber Is a Shotgun Pleading

         Under the Rules of Federal Civil Procedure, a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and (2) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), (3). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Additionally, a party must limit its claims, as far as practicable, to a single set of circumstances and, if doing so would promote clarify, each claim should be founded on a separate transaction or occurrence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). “Complaints that violate either Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both, are often disparagingly referred to as ‘shotgun pleadings.'” Weiland v. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.