Coello v. Segars et al

Filing 13

ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Strike, of For a More Definite Statement as to Count I and II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. #9) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent the Court grants Defendants' request for a more definite statement. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 12/15/2014. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JACK COELLO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-2825-T-30AEP

MARVIN K. SEGARS and FEDEX
SUPPLYCHAIN SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
Strike, of For a More Definite Statement as to Count I and II of Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint (as incorporated into Defendants’ Answer, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaims) (Dkt. #9) and Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motion
(Dkt. #12). Upon review and consideration, it is the Court’s conclusion that the Motion
should be granted in part.
Plaintiff collided with Defendant Marvin K. Segars, doing business as Marvin
Segars Trucking, (“Segars”) at an intersection in Polk County resulting in serious physical
injuries. Segars, was operating the vehicle while conducting business on behalf of
Defendant FedEx Supply Chain Systems, Inc. (“FedEx”). As a result, Plaintiff sues Segars
for damages based on his “negligent operation of the tractor trailer” and sues FedEx under
the theories of dangerous instrumentality and vicarious liability.

Defendants move to dismiss both counts of the Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim. Plaintiff does not specify Segar’s specific negligent act which contributed to
the collision, i.e. failure to obey traffic signals; nor does he allege ultimate facts to support
FedEx’s liability based on the “dangerous instrumentality” doctrine or vicarious liability.
Plaintiff argues that the Amended Complaint contains sufficient factual details to meet the
pleading requirements based on Florida state law. Nonetheless, he states that he will file a
Second Amended Complaint to clarify the allegations, particularly in regards to the
relationship between the Defendants.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Strike, of For a More Definite Statement as

to Count I and II of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. #9) is GRANTED IN PART to
the extent the Court grants Defendants’ request for a more definite statement.
2.

Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days

of the date of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 15th day of December, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2014\14-cv-2825 mtd 9.docx

2