JOHN E. STEELE, Senior District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim and Motion to Strike Third Affirmative Defense (Doc. #14) filed on May 2, 2016. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Barrett's of S.W. Florida, Inc. filed a response (Doc. #22) on May 31, 2016. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Richard Denoncour (Denoncour), a salaried and commission-based sales associate, filed a four-count Complaint against his former employer, Barrett's of S.W. Florida, Inc. (Barrett's) and Joel L. Barrett (collectively "defendants"), claiming that he was misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). (Doc. #1.) Plaintiff also asserts state-law claims for breach of oral contract for failure to pay plaintiff commissions, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment against defendants. (
Barrett's counterclaim arises under state law, and the Court has no independent federal jurisdiction to hear the claim. However, the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims that are "related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a);
The Court agrees with plaintiff that the counterclaim is permissive as it is wholly unrelated to the allegations of the Complaint. There is no relationship between the claim that defendants failed to pay plaintiff's overtime wages and the claim that plaintiff failed to repay a loan from Barrett's. Most of the facts relating to the prosecution and defense of plaintiff's claim are distinct from the facts needed to litigate the counterclaim. Therefore, the Court finds that the counterclaim is unrelated to the FLSA claim, and thus is permissive rather than compulsory. Because defendants have presented no independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, the permissive counterclaim is dismissed.
Plaintiff moves to strike as legally insufficient defendants' Third Affirmative Defense, which alleges that defendants are entitled to a setoff for repayment of the loan. (Doc. #11, ¶64.) Courts disfavor motions to strike and deny them unless the allegations have "no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party."
Under Florida law, set-off is an affirmative defense in contract actions that must be pleaded or it is waived.
Accordingly, it is hereby
1. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim and Motion to Strike Third Affirmative Defense (Doc. #14) is
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the counter-claimants and counter-defendant on the docket, but the case remains open as to plaintiff's claims against defendants.