United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is Defendant Honeywell International, Inc.'s
(“Honeywell”) motion for partial dismissal of the
complaint. (Doc. 2).
CCI-LAP I, L.P. (“CCI”) leases real property to
Honeywell for operation of a facility that assembles and
tests aircraft components. CCI contends that Honeywell's
facility has contaminated the property with pollutants,
causing two potential buyers to cancel purchase agreements
for the property and forcing CCI to pay cleanup expenses. CCI
asserts claims against Honeywell for breach of contract
(Count One); negligence (Count Two); and wantonness (Count
Three). (Doc. 1-1 at 4-5).
has moved to dismiss CCI's wantonness claim for failure
to state a claim. Honeywell also has moved to dismiss
CCI's request for consequential damages and specific
performance. (See Doc. 2). The court GRANTS
IN PART and DENIES IN PART
Honeywell's motion to dismiss.
court finds, and CCI agrees, that its wantonness claim and
its request for specific performance do not meet pleading
standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Therefore,
the court GRANTS Honeywell's motion to
dismiss as to these two claims and DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE CCI's wantonness claim and request for
specific performance. The court DENIES
Honeywell's request to dismiss CCI's request for
consequential damages because at the pleading stage, the
court cannot find a matter of law that CCI is not entitled to
stage, the court must accept as true the factual allegations
in the complaint and construe them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Butler v. Sheriff of Palm
Beach Cty., 685 F.3d 1261, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012). The
court also may consider a document attached to a motion to
dismiss if it is central to the plaintiff's claims and
the authenticity of the document is not challenged. Day
v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2005).
Honeywell attached to its motion to dismiss a copy of the
lease agreement between itself and CCI. CCI references the
lease in its complaint, the lease is central to CCI's
request for damages, and CCI has not challenged the contents
of the lease. Therefore, the court's description of the
facts incorporates not only CCI's allegations but also
the contents of the lease agreement.
owns real property in Anniston, Alabama that it leases to
Honeywell. (Doc. 1-1 at 2, ¶ 1). Honeywell operates its
Anniston Aviation Aftermarket Center on the property. (Doc.
1-1 at 2-3, ¶¶ 2, 4). Honeywell assembles,
reconditions, and tests aircraft components at the facility.
(Doc. 1-1 at 3, ¶ 4).
has occupied the property continuously since 1986 under a
lease agreement that was assigned to CCI when it purchased
the property in 2003. (Doc. 1-1 at 2, ¶ 3). In January
2017, CCI and Honeywell executed a lease agreement pursuant
to which Honeywell agreed to continue to occupy the real
property for 180 months. (Doc. 1-1 at 2, ¶ 2).
to Honeywell's motion to dismiss, the lease agreement
states that Honeywell agrees not to undertake activity on the
premises that will produce hazardous materials. (Doc. 2 at
29). In addition, the lease agreement provides that Honeywell
“shall indemnify, defend, and hold” CCI
“harmless from and against any and all losses,
liabilities . . ., claims, demands, actions, suits, damages
(excluding consequential, incidental, special, and punitive
damages . . .)” that are “brought or recoverable
against, or suffered or incurred” by CCI “as the
result of any release of” hazardous materials. (Doc. 2
October 2017, CCI entered a Purchase and Sale Agreement
(“PSA”) with a potential buyer, who agreed to buy
the property for $4, 550, 000.00. (Doc. 1-1 at 3, ¶ 50).
In December 2017, an environmental site assessment revealed
Hexavalent Chromium in numerous groundwater samples taken
from the property. (Doc. 1-1 at 3, ¶ 6). The
concentrations of Hexavalent Chromium exceeded the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's regional
screening levels by various amounts. (Doc. 1-1 at 3, ¶
6). Based on these exceedances, the potential purchaser of
the property terminated its PSA with CCI. (Doc. 1-1 at 3,
April 2018, CCI entered a second PSA with another potential
buyer for the sum of $4, 425, 000.00. (Doc. 1-1 at 3, ¶
8). In June 2018, the second potential purchaser conducted
its own environmental site assessment which revealed
Hexavalent Chromium in excessive levels. (Doc. 1-1 at 3,
¶ 9). Based on those test results, in August 2018, the
second potential purchaser terminated its PSA with CCI. (Doc.
1-1 at 3, ¶ 10).
alleges that Honeywell's activities on the leased
premises are the cause of the excessive levels of Hexavalent
Chromium. (Doc. 1-1 at 4, ¶ 11). CCI claims that it has
been damaged by Honeywell because the presence of Hexavalent
Chromium caused it to lose two potential purchasers for the
property. (Doc. 1-1 at 4, ¶ 12). CCI also alleges that
it was forced to hire environmental consultants, pay legal
fees, and enter an Alabama Department of Environmental
Management voluntary cleanup program at its own expense.
(Doc. 1-1 at 4, ¶¶ 13-14).
seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Honeywell.
(Doc. 1-1 at 5). CCI also demands specific performance of the