Sanchez v. ERMC of America, LLC et al
OPINION AND ORDER granting 49 motion to dismiss; granting 50 motion to dismiss; dismissing 47 Third Amended Complaint as a shotgun pleading without prejudice to filing a Fourth Amended Complaint within 14 days of this Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/7/2017. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
COASTLAND CENTER, LLC and
COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, LLC,
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss (Docs. ##49, 50) filed on May 24, 2017, and plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition (Doc. #51) filed on June 7, 2017.
reasons set forth below, the motions are granted with leave to
Plaintiff Rosa Sanchez (plaintiff or Sanchez) has brought
this premises liability action against the owner and operator of
Coastland Center Mall for negligence arising out of a slip and
fall incident that occurred on or about May 7, 2015 near the
entrance to the Old Navy store.
(Doc. #47, ¶ 5.)
alleges that she slipped and fell on a “slippery substance,”
sustaining serious injury.
(Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.)
The case was removed based upon diversity jurisdiction, and
is currently proceeding on a two-count Third Amended Complaint
against defendants Coastland Center, LLC and ERMC of America, LLC
(collectively, “defendants”), alleging negligence.
Defendants move to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint as an
impermissible shotgun pleading because Count II re-alleges all
preceding paragraphs, including those paragraphs alleged under
(Id. at 3.)
In response, plaintiff asserts that the
Third Amended Complaint is concise enough to allow defendants to
frame a response, but alternatively has no objection to amending
the sentence that re-alleges all preceding paragraphs under Count
“The typical shotgun complaint contains several counts, each
predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts
(i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations
and legal conclusions.”
Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear,
Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002).
Eleventh Circuit has consistently frowned upon shotgun pleadings
such as the one presented herein, and shotgun pleadings “exact an
intolerable toll on the trial court’s docket.”
Cramer v. Florida,
117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997). See also Davis v. Coca–Cola
Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 979 n. 54 (11th Cir. 2008)
The Court previously directed defendants to show cause or
supplement the Notice of Removal to address the Court’s subjectmatter jurisdiction. (Doc. #27.) The Court is satisfied as to
its subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. #29.)
- 2 -
established that when faced with a shotgun pleading, a district
court should require the parties to file an amended pleading rather
than allow such a case to proceed to trial.
Byrne v. Nezhat, 261
F.3d 1075, 1130 (11th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff will be required to address this deficiency in
amending the pleading.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendant Coastland Center, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
#49) is GRANTED.
2. Defendant ERMC Property Management Company of Illinois,
LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #50) is GRANTED.
dismissed as a shotgun pleading without prejudice to filing a
Fourth Amended Complaint within FOURTEEN (14) days of this Opinion
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
Counsel of Record
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?