Methelus et al v. The School Board Of Collier County, Florida et al

Filing 239

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 228 Defendants School Board of Collier County, Florida and Kamela Patton's Motion to Dismiss to the extent stated above. The Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 221 ) is dismissed without prejudice. P laintiffs may file a Fourth Amended Complaint consistent with this Order on or before March 1, 2019. Failure to do so will result in this case being dismissed with prejudice. Defendants must answer Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint on or before March 5, 2019. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 2/25/2019. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
NEHEMY ANTOINE and INGRID
ALONZO,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-379-FtM-38MRM

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA and KAMELA
PATTON,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is Defendants School Board of Collier County, Florida and
Kamela Patton’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 228) and Plaintiffs Nehemy Antoine and Ingrid
Alonzo‘s response in opposition (Doc. 232). For the following reasons, Defendants’
motion is granted in part and denied in part.
This is a national origin discrimination action. Plaintiffs are foreign-born, English
Language Learner children who were denied access to free public education in Collier
County, Florida, through the Defendants’ policy and practice of excluding such children
from public school. (Doc. 221). The parties have been litigating this case for nearly three

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are
cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By
allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve,
or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites.
Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the Court.

years, yet they are still quibbling over the pleadings. Even with a looming summary
judgment deadline, Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended
Complaint.2 (Docs. 23 at 2; 228). Based on Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs’ response, and
controlling authority, the Court makes the following findings:
First, the Third Amended Complaint is a “proverbial shotgun pleading,” as it
incorporates all preceding paragraphs into each subsequent count and thus does not
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.3 Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp.,
464 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th Cir. 2006).

As a result, the Court dismisses the Third

Amended Complaint, but grants Plaintiffs leave to file a fourth (and final) amended
complaint.
Second, the Third Amended Complaint contains improper citations to legal
authority and legal argument. See Blount v. Nugen, No. 6:16-CV-1971-ORL-41KRS,
2016 WL 8793749, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2016), report and recommendation adopted,
No. 6:16-CV-1971-ORL-41GJK, 2017 WL 1438328 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2017) (“Citations
of case law and statutes are not appropriate in the complaint, but rather may be included

Although labeled a motion to dismiss, Defendants’ arguments are better suited
procedurally as a motion to strike or motion for a more definite statement. See, e.g.,
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1331 n.10 (11th Cir. 2015)
(citation omitted); Hutchings v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 6:08-CV-305-ORL-19KR, 2008 WL
4186994, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2008) (citations omitted). Because this case has been
pending for nearly three years and discovery is set to expire in less than three weeks, the
Court will review the motion as is for the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of
this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Defendants should not expect such leniency from the Court
in the future.
2

3

When Plaintiffs file a fourth amended complaint, they must follow the pleading
requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For example, the
allegations should be stated “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable
to a single set of circumstances,” rather than in long, run-on paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P.
10(b).

2

at the time of trial or in a motion for summary judgment.”); see also Hernandez v. Century
Corr. Inst., No. 3:07CV404LAC/EMT, 2010 WL 1531238, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2010),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:07CV404/LAC/EMT, 2010 WL 1531278 (N.D.
Fla. Apr. 15, 2010) (finding legal arguments inappropriate in a complaint). Although
Defendants do not state with specificity the violating paragraphs, the Court expects
Plaintiffs’ next pleading to eliminate legal authority and arguments.
Third, the operative pleading continues to include class action allegations the Court
rejected in denying class certification on the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, Title
VI, Equal Protection, and Florida Educational Equity Act claims. (Docs. 183; 202). Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(D) provides, in pertinent part, “the court may issue orders that . . .
require that the pleadings be amended to eliminate allegations about representation of
absent persons and that the action proceed accordingly.” The rule’s Advisory Committee
Notes explain that “[a] negative determination means that the action should be stripped
of its character as a class action.” Because class certification is alive only as to the due
process claim, the fourth amended complaint must leave out paragraphs 86 to 106 of the
Third Amended Complaint and other allegations that do not comport with the Court’s prior
rulings. (Docs. 183; 202).
Fourth, Defendants’ attempt to re-hash their standing argument this Court
previously rejected is denied. (Docs. 62 at 27-28; 183 at 11-13; 202 at n.3).
Fifth, although not the model of clarity, the Third Amended Complaint does not reallege the previously dismissed Title IV and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against
Superintendent Patton. (Doc. 221 at ¶¶ 121-150). To that extent, Defendants’ motion is
denied.

3

Finally, Defendants’ motion to strike three allegations as impertinent or immaterial
is granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 228 at 6-7). Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f), “[t]he court may strike from a pleading . . . any . . . immaterial [or]
impertinent . . . matter.” “An allegation is immaterial if it has no value in developing the
issues of the case.”

Jacques v. Jacques, No. 8:16-CV-1297-T-33TGW, 2016 WL

7034513, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2016). In addition, “[a]n allegation is impertinent if it is
irrelevant to the issues and which are not properly in issue between the parties.” Id. A
motion to strike should be granted it “the matter sought to be omitted has no possible
relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.”
Reyher v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 574, 576 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (citations
omitted).
Here, the Court strikes paragraphs 37 and 38 on the history of foreign-born
unaccompanied minors and a Cuban student who was denied enrollment in 2012
because the paragraphs either confuse the issues or are immaterial and thus have no
value in developing the issues of this case. (Doc. 221 at ¶¶ 37-38). The Court, however,
denies Defendants’ motion to strike paragraph 45, which states, “School officials make
the discriminatory assumption that such children are likely to fail academically when they
deny them enrollment. This assumption is not based on any testing or assessment of the
individual student; rather, the denial of enrollment occurs without any individualized
assessment. At most, this determination is based solely on the student’s transcript from
a prior school.” (Id. at ¶ 45). The Court finds paragraph 45 is relevant and has value to
the issues in this case.
Accordingly, it is now

4

ORDERED:
1. Defendants School Board of Collier County, Florida and Kamela Patton’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 228) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part to the
extent stated above. The Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 221) is dismissed
without prejudice.
2. Plaintiffs may file a Fourth Amended Complaint consistent with this Order on
or before March 1, 2019. Failure to do so will result in this case being
dismissed with prejudice.
3. Defendants must answer Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint on or before
March 5, 2019.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 25th day of February 2019.

Copies: All Parties of Record

5