Kennedy v. Petro Management, Inc. et al

Filing 6

ORDER -- Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On or before Wednesday, May 17, 2017, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/3/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PATRICIA KENNEDY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:17-cv-757-Orl-37DCI

PETRO MANAGEMENT, INC.; PH &
NJ LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; S
& S FERRARA III, INC.; and NANCY
VO,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
In the instant action, Plaintiff has filed suit against multiple Defendants for
multiple violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Doc. 1
(“Complaint”).) According to the Complaint, the alleged violations occurred at a
shopping plaza identified as “Malabar Plaza,” located at 1200 Malabar Road, Palm Bay,
FL 32907. (Id.) Although each Defendant is alleged to “own, lease, lease to, or operate”
distinct properties at this location, Plaintiff collectively refers to Defendants as a single
entity that is responsible for parking lot violations, restroom violations, and unspecified
violations concerning inaccessible features, goods, services, and facilities. (Id.)
As an initial matter, the Court takes judicial notice of the Orders issued in Kennedy
v. Skyview Plaza, LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-2128-Orl-22KRS (Docs. 25, 29) and Kennedy v.
IMDAD Haider IRA, LLC, Case No. 6:17-cv-454-Orl-31KRS (Docs. 6, 23, 25)—ADA cases
also filed by Plaintiff. Importantly, these Orders apprise Plaintiff of the improper joinder
-1-

of defendants who lease separate property in a common location, where each property is
alleged to contain separate violations. Despite such warning, Plaintiff continues to file
complaints that fail to clearly delineate which violations are attributed to which
Defendants. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Palm Harbor Assoc. Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-734-Orl-37KRS
(Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s present Complaint also fails to differentiate the specific location of the
alleged restroom violations within Malabar Plaza. (Doc. 1, p. 5.) The same is true of the
alleged violations referencing inaccessible features, goods, services, and facilities (id. at 4)
—a vague description that is also wholly improper.
The foregoing practice constitutes a form of shotgun pleading, as Plaintiff asserts
“multiple [violations] against multiple defendants without specifying which of the
defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty.
Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015). Such pleadings impose on the Court
the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies to determine which facts are relevant to each
Defendant and, in turn, fails to give Defendants adequate notice of the relevant violations
asserted against them. See id.
Plaintiff has demonstrated a propensity for filing complaints that constitute
impermissible shotgun pleadings and are non-compliant with the joinder rules set forth
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This practice is unacceptable and requires
dismissal. See Cramer v. Florida, 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Paylor v.
Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1125–28 (11th Cir. 2014). If Plaintiff chooses to
replead, any amended complaint must clearly distinguish which factual allegations are
relevant to each Defendant and the basis for any asserted joint liability. Plaintiff is
-2-

forewarned that continued filings with the same deficiencies will result in summary
dismissal without further notice.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2.

On or before Wednesday, May 17, 2017, Plaintiff may file an amended
complaint that corrects the faults identified in this Order. Failure to timely
amend will result in dismissal with prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on May 3, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-