amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court.” Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir.2002). Yet Morrow has explicitly requested “an opportunity to amend the complaint and cure the omissions,” and the court will permit Morrow another opportunity to plead fraud consistent with Rule 9(b). D. Claims for Breach of Contract And Unjust Enrichment The defendants argue that Morrow’s claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment are too vague. In fact, Morrow’s claims are brief, and the complaint states only that “defendants’ actions amount to a breach of contract and/or unjust enrichment.” Morrow’s cu F.3d 132, 144 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Fuller v. Golden Age Fisheries, 14 F.3d 1405,
recognizing a right to contribution holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because claim properly was for contribution holding that the flsas remedial scheme is sufficiently comprehensive as to preempt state law with respect to contribution or indemnification claims by employers holding that if the party seeking indemnity is held liable in part because of its own negligence common law indemnification is unavailable and the only remedy is contribution holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim