Moore v. San Carlos Park Fire Protection & Rescue

Filing 31

ORDER denying as moot 22 Defendant's Motion to Strike Amended Complaint Paragraphs 14-23, 34-110, 116, 119 (Second Sentence), 132, and 134, or Alternatively, to Dismiss Time-Barred Allegations. The Amended Complaint 21 is DISMISSED with out prejudice to filing a Second Amended Complaint on or before February 1, 2018. Failure to file a timely amended pleading will result in the closing of this case without further notice. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 1/19/2018. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
COLLEEN MOORE, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-546-FtM-99MRM

SAN CARLOS PARK FIRE
PROTECTION & RESCUE,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Amended
Complaint Paragraphs 14-23, 34-110, 116, 119 (Second Sentence), 132, and 134, or
Alternatively, to Dismiss Time-Barred Allegations (Doc. 22) filed on December 15, 2017.
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 29) on January 2, 2018. For the reasons
set forth below, the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as a shotgun
pleading with leave to amend.
BACKGROUND
This case involves allegations of a sexually hostile work environment at the San
Carlos Fire Department. On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff Colleen Moore (Plaintiff or
Moore) filed a three-count Amended Complaint against her former employer, Defendant

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.

San Carlos Park Fire Protection and Rescue (Defendant or SCPF) for hostile work
environment, sex discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act. (Doc. 21).
Moore alleges that she was subject to harassment and discrimination throughout her 20year career with SCPF. Moore further alleges that she was constructively discharged in
November 2013 in retaliation for her complaints of disparate treatment.

Moore

subsequently filed her Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human
Relations and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on February
24, 2014. (Doc. 21-1, “Charge”). She received her Notice of Right to Sue Letter from the
EEOC on July 30, 2017. (Doc. 21-2).
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is 27-pages and 144paragraphs long and goes into great detail surrounding specific instances of harassment
and discrimination directed at her, beginning in 1993, until she was terminated in 2013.
Defendant moves to strike, or alternatively dismiss, Paragraphs 14-23, 34-110, 116, 119
(Second Sentence), 132, and 134.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 provide the minimum requirements for
pleadings. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 10(b)
further provides that “[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs,
each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
A problem arises when a plaintiff fails to follow the rules. One such problem is a “shotgun
pleading.” A common type of shotgun complaint is a pleading “containing multiple counts

2

where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive
count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire
complaint.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sherriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1322 (11th
Cir. 2015).
“Courts in the Eleventh Circuit have little tolerance for shotgun pleadings. See
Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, No. 16-15276, 2018 WL 268849, at *2 (11th Cir. Jan. 3,
2018) (citations omitted). This is because, among other things, “[t]hey waste scarce
judicial resources, ‘inexorably broaden[] the scope of discovery,’ ‘wreak havoc on
appellate court dockets,’ and ‘undermine[] the public’s respect for the courts.’” Id. (citation
omitted); see also Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323 (stating [s]hotgun pleadings “in one way or
another, [fail] to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the
grounds upon which each claim rests” (footnoted omitted)). Consequently, when faced
with a shotgun pleading, a district court should require the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint rather than allow the case to proceed to trial. See Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins.
Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1127-28 (11th Cir. 2014) (criticizing the district court for not policing
shotgun pleadings).
Here, the Amended Complaint is a typical shotgun pleading. Paragraphs 10
through 26 set out the “Statement of Facts.” (Doc. 21 at ¶¶ 10-26). Paragraphs 27-144
are divided into three counts, two of which Moore “reasserts and states allegations”
contained in Count I. (Id. at ¶¶ 116, 132). This is impermissible under the pleading
requirements. See Kendall v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 6:17-cv-1888-Orl-37GJK, 2017
WL 6042020, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2017). Moore thus must file a second amended
complaint.

3

Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1)

The Amended Complaint (Doc. 21) is DIMISSED without prejudice to filing

a Second Amended Complaint on or before February 1, 2018. Failure to file a timely
amended pleading will result in the closing of this case without further notice.
(2)

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Amended Complaint Paragraphs 14-23, 34-

110, 116, 119 (Second Sentence), 132, and 134, or Alternatively, to Dismiss Time-Barred
Allegations (Doc. 22) is DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 18th day of January, 2018.

Copies: All Parties of Record

4