IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOSHUA S. FRIEBEL and 

ELIZABETH F. FRIEBEL,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-120/RS-EMT

PARADISE SHORES OF BAY COUNTY,

LLC, a Florida limited liability company;

ROBERT E. BLACKERBY, an individual;

MAGNUM CAPITAL, LLC, a Florida limited

liability company; DURDEN ENTERPRISES

II, INC., a Delaware corporation; DURDEN

ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida limited

liability company; ESTATE OF KEDRICK

EARL DURDEN; MICHAEL EARL DURDEN,

as Personal Representative of the Estate of

Kedrick Earl Durden; and MH I, LLC, a Florida

limited liability company, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Robert Blackerby, Magnum Capital, and MH I’s Motion to Dismiss 

Paradise Shores of Bay County Crossclaim (Doc. 63) and Paradise Shores of Bay 

County’s Response (Doc. 76).

I. Standard of Review

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts, which 

accepted as true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 

S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569, 127 S. Ct. 
1955, 1974 (2007). Granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate if it is clear that no relief 

could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the 

allegations of the complaint. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S. Ct. 

2229, 2232 (1984). In making this determination, the court must accept all factual 

allegations in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. 

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406, 122 S. Ct. 2179, 2182 (2003).

II. Analysis 

Paradise Shore’s Crossclaim (Doc. 42, p. 22-23), asserts that “if Defendant, 

Paradise Shores of Bay County, LLC is forced to pay Plaintiffs any money pursuant to 

this litigation, Defendant Paradise Shores of Bay County, LLC is entitled to seek full 

compensation from the Blackerby Cross-Defendants.” 

Nowhere does Paradise Shores allege that it is entitled to “indemnification.” This 

term is not magical, but it alerts the parties to a legal theory upon which relief could be 

granted. Merely alleging “compensation” is not sufficient. This is true especially in the 

light of the absolute paucity of facts that Paradise Shores has put to paper that would 

support a basis for its crossclaim. Simply stating that Blackerby, et al., “are liable” to 

Paradise Shores (Doc. 76, p.3) does not address essential elements of indemnification, 

such as the existence of a valid contract. Allowing the crossclaim to proceed would leave

the parties to guess under what theory it is proceeding and does not meet the standards set 

forth in Twombly, 50 U.S. at 569, 127 S. Ct. at 1974. Accepting all of the allegations as 

true, the crossclaim does not state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 
IT IS ORDERED that the Crossclaim of Defendant Paradise Shores of Bay 

County, LLC against Defendants Robert E. Blackerby, Magnum Capital, LLC, and MH I, 

LLC (Doc. 42, P. 22-23) is dismissed. 

ORDERED on November 15, 2010

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE