Brett v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al

Filing 4

ORDER striking #1 Complaint. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order on or before December 9, 2019. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 11/18/2019. (MHM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

NANCY BRETT,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:19-cv-1327-J-34JBT
vs.
AMAZON.COM, INC. and
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated the instant action on
November 14, 2019 by filing a five-count Complaint for race, age and disability
discrimination, as well as retaliation. See Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 1).
Upon review, the Court finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible “shotgun
pleading.” In Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015),
the Eleventh Circuit identified four types of “shotgun” pleadings. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at
1321-23. As relevant here, one such type of improper pleading occurs where the drafter
“commits the sin of not separating into a different count each cause of action or claim for
relief.” Id. at 1322-23 n.13 (collecting cases). Indeed, Rule 10(b), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (Rule(s)) requires that: “[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded
on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count or defense.”
See Rule 10(b); see also Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Central Fla. Cmty. College, 77
F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a properly drawn complaint “will present
each claim for relief in a separate count, as required by Rule 10(b), and with such clarity

and precision that the defendant will be able to discern what the plaintiff is claiming and to
frame a responsive pleading” (internal footnote omitted)).
Here, Counts I, II and IV of the Complaint, titled “Race Discrimination,” “Age
Discrimination,” and “Disability Discrimination,” each appear to include two separate
causes of action, one premised on disparate treatment and the other on a hostile work
environment. See Complaint ¶¶ 31, 38, 48. Notably, in closely analogous circumstances,
the Eleventh Circuit has found this manner of pleading to be improper. See Palmer v.
Albertson’s LLC, 418 F. App’x 885, 889 (11th Cir. 2011) (rejecting plaintiff’s argument that
he had adequately alleged a hostile work environment claim where the complaint contained
only two counts—disability discrimination and retaliation). Accordingly, the Court will strike
the Complaint and direct Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that sets forth each of her
claims for relief in a separate count. See Anderson, 77 F.3d at 367 n.5 (noting that when
faced with a shotgun pleading the district court should sua sponte strike the pleading and
direct the plaintiff to file a more definite statement). Thus, if Plaintiff intends to assert a
claim for hostile work environment, and can do so consistent with Rule 11, Plaintiff must
set forth that claim in a separate count and identify the specific factual allegations on which
such claim is based. See Palmer, 418 F. App’x at 899-90 (finding that the mere use of the
words “harassed” and “hostile” in a discrimination claim “neither stated a plausible claim
for relief nor provided [defendant] with sufficient notice to defend against a harassment or
hostile work environment claim”). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1.

The Complaint (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN.

2.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this
Order on or before December 9, 2019. Failure to do so may result in a
dismissal of this action.

3.

Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint in accordance with the
requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on November 18, 2019.

lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties