Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—M.D. Fla.: Employer’s unjust enrichment and neglected misrepresentation counterclaims dismissed, (Aug 18, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

But a counterclaim for fraudulent misrepresentation may move forward.

A federal district court in Florida dismissed, without prejudice, a golf club’s counterclaims for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment against its executive chef. The court dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim for failure to allege sufficient facts, and the court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim for failure to allege a necessary element. The golf club’s counterclaim for fraudulent misrepresentation survived the chef’s arguments that this claim did not state the sufficient facts required under Federal Rule 9(b) to sustain an allegation of fraud and violated the independent tort doctrine under Florida state law (Daniels v. Fiddlesticks Country Club, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-324-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2025)).

An executive chef for the Fiddlesticks golf club for eight years, the plaintiff in this case brought an action under the FMLA, alleging that he was terminated for abandoning his position despite his being on FMLA-protected leave.

Counterclaims. Here, the current action relates to the golf club’s counterclaims against the chef. The golf club alleged that by the end of September 2024, he had “demonstrated a clear pattern of insubordination in his duties as executive chef,” including customer complaints about the food quality that went unrectified. Despite this allegedly unsatisfactory service, the golf club gave the chef a $20,000 bonus in November 2024, an amount which it seeks to recover by its counterclaims for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

Negligent misrepresentation. In November 2024, an audit of the golf club’s food and beverage inventory levels appeared to be significantly inflated. Placing the blame for this discrepancy on the chef, the golf club brought a negligent misrepresentation claim against the chef, alleging he “negligently misrepresented the food and beverage inventory counts by hyper-inflating the amount of food and beverage items stored onsite” at the golf club.

Noting that because this claim was based on an allegation of fraud, the court explained that the golf club must meet the heightened pleading requirement of Federal Rule 9(b). Ultimately, the court dismissed this claim, holding that it not only failed to allege the substance required for a fraudulent claim, but it also was doubtful that the claim even satisfied the general pleading requirements.

Fraudulent misrepresentation. Next, the golf club alleged that around October 2024, the chef represented to his general manager that his employment agreement entitled him to a non-discretionary $20,000 bonus—even though he was only entitled to a discretionary $10,000 bonus. He then allegedly pressured the golf club’s controller to advise the general manager that chef was, in fact, entitled to the larger bonus. Because of these representations, the chef was paid a $20,000 bonus on November 7, 2024.

The court held that this counterclaim had sufficient factual allegations to withstand the chef’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that in an action involving fraudulent misrepresentation, “a recipient may rely on the truth of a representation, even though its falsity could have been ascertained had he made an investigation.” Further, the allegations satisfied the Rule 9(b) requirements, in that this claim alleged the purportedly false statements, the general time frame of the chef’s purportedly false statements, who he made them to, how the statements were misleading, and what he gained from the false statements.

Independent tort doctrine. According to the chef, both negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation claims were barred by Florida’s independent tort doctrine. Under this doctrine a plaintiff may not recast a breach of contract claim as a tort claim. The court noted that the chef essentially argued that his employment agreement with the golf club governs their relationship and precludes the golf club’s misrepresentation and fraud claims. Without the employment agreement, and without the golf club’s claim that the chef breached the employment agreement, the court declined to dismiss the claims under the independent tort doctrine. However, the court stated that the chef may reassert this defense at the summary judgment stage of this case.

Unjust enrichment. Turning to the claim for unjust enrichment, the golf club argued that the chef’s retention of the $20,00 bonus that he received was unjust because he had not provided written documentation regarding his entitlement to the bonus and because the food and beverage department for which he was responsible severely underperformed for the 2023 and 2024 fiscal years.

Ultimately, the court dismissed this claim, holding that it failed to allege the final element—that it would be inequitable for the chef not to repay the bonus to the golf club. In rejecting the golf club’s counterclaim, the court noted that it had not alleged that the chef was required to provide documentation proving his entitlement to the bonus. Likewise, if the chef was undeserving of the bonus, this did not render his retention of the bonus unjust.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-324-SPC-KCD.

Attorneys: Jason L. Gunter (The Law Office of Jason L. Gunter) for Ryan Daniels. William Ogden Kratochvil (Vernis & Bowling of Southwest Florida) for Fiddlesticks Country Club, Inc.

Companies: Fiddlesticks Country Club, Inc.

Cases: TortClaims Discharge EmployeeLeave FloridaNews