Opinion
Case No. 8:10-cv-1268-T-30TGW.
July 19, 2010
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims II and III (Dkt. 16), filed on July 19, 2010. The Court notes that the law is clear that, although Defendant cannot recover under both unjust enrichment, a claim for money had and received, and a claim for breach of an express contract, both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida law permit a party to allege these claims in the alternative. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Shibata v. Lim, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2000). Indeed, Counterclaims II and III even allege that they are being asserted "in the alternative" (Dkt. 7).
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims II and III (Dkt. 16) is hereby DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida.