Grajales v. Accountable Climate Solutions, Inc.
Filing
14
ORDER denying 10 Motion to Strike. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/9/2015. (KAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
FERNANDO GRAJALES,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 8:14-cv-3101-T-33MAP
v.
ACCOUNTABLE CLIMATE SOLUTIONS,
INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant
Accountable Climate Solutions, Inc.’s Motion to Strike and for
Repleader (Doc. # 10), which was filed on January 23, 2015.
Plaintiff Fernando Grajales filed a response on January 28,
2015.
(Doc. # 13). For the reasons that follow, the Court
denies the Motion.
Analysis
On December 12, 2014, Grajales filed a putative class
action Complaint seeking the payment of overtime wages against
his employer, Accountable Climate Solutions, Inc. (ACS), under
the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Doc. # 1).
ACS seeks an Order
striking the Complaint under Rule 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
arguing, inter alia, that the Complaint contains redundant
allegations, irrelevant assertions, and is otherwise a shotgun
pleading.
ACS also contends that the Complaint fails to
comply with the technical requirements of Rules 8 and 10 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Although the Court
agrees that the Complaint is not a model of clarity, the Court
declines
to
employ
the
draconian
sanction
of
striking
Grajales’s pleading.
A.
Rules 8 and 10, Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule
requires
8(a)
that
of
a
the
Federal
claimant
Rules
state:
(1)
of
a
Civil
short
Procedure
and
plain
statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief
sought.
Rule 8 also requires that “[e]ach allegation must be
simple,
concise,
technical
form
is
and
direct”
required.”
and
specifies
8(d)(1),
Fed.
that
R.
“[n]o
Civ.
P.
Likewise, Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
requires that “[a] party must state its claims . . . in
numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a
single set of circumstances.” 10(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.
After carefully reviewing the Complaint, the Court is
satisfied that Grajales is compliant with Rules 8 and 10 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Complaint, which is
organized into numbered paragraphs in accordance with Rule 10
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, alleges that the
-2-
Court has jurisdiction over this matter because Grajales seeks
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §
216(b).
(Doc. # 1 at ¶ 75).
Grajales also contends that ACS
“failed to pay overtime to Grajales as well as other similarly
situated installers and helpers,” that “Grajales as well as
other installers and helpers worked overtime without overtime
pay,” and ACS “owes overtime to Grajales for work he performed
within the past three years.” (Id. at ¶¶ 76-79). In addition,
Grajales contends that ACS failed to keep records of its
employees’ hours and willfully violated the requirements of
the FLSA. (Id. at ¶ 7, 8, 73).
These allegations, among
others, satisfy Rule 8's requirement that Grajales provide a
short and plain statement of his claim and make a demand for
relief.
The
Court
accordingly
rejects
A
ACS’s
arguments
predicated upon Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
B.
Rule 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P. and Shotgun Pleadings
Rule 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., states: "The court may
strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter."
Although the Court has
broad discretion in ruling on a motion to strike, such motions
are disfavored due to their “drastic nature.”
Royal Ins. Co.
of Am. v. M/Y Anastasia, No. 95-cv-30498, 1997 U.S. Dist.
-3-
LEXIS 15595, at *10 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 1997).
Material that
has “no possible relationship to the controversy,” that “may
confuse the issues,” or that will “prejudice a party” is
subject to being stricken under Rule 12(f). Chabot v. MLU
Servs., Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1330 (M.D. Fla. 2008).
The Court concedes that portions of the Complaint could
be characterized as redundant. For instance, Grajales alleges
throughout the Complaint that ACS failed to make overtime
payments. (Id. at ¶ 1, 55, 76, 77, 85, 89). However, the
repetitive
and
arguably
verbose
nature
of
Grajales’s
allegations does not warrant the requested remedy of striking
the Complaint.
In addition, ACS has not identified any
immaterial or prejudicial statement in the Complaint that is
subject to being stricken under Rule 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Furthermore, the Court declines to classify the Complaint
as a shotgun pleading. “The typical shotgun complaint contains
several
counts,
each
one
incorporating
by
reference
the
allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where
most
of
the
irrelevant
counts
factual
(i.e.,
all
allegations
but
and
the
legal
first)
contain
conclusions.”
Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp.,
305 F. 3d 1293, 1295 at n.9 (11th Cir. 2002); Wagner v. First
Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th Cir. 2006)
-4-
(“Shotgun
pleadings
are
those
that
incorporate
every
antecedent allegation by reference into each subsequent claim
for relief.”).
In such cases, it is “virtually impossible to
know which allegations of fact are intended to support which
claim(s) for relief.” Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trustees of
Cent. Fla. Cmty. College, 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996).
A defendant faced with such a complaint is not expected to
frame a responsive pleading. Id.
Grajales’s response to the Motion to Strike confirms that
the Complaint asserts a single count against ACS for violation
of the FLSA. (Doc. # 13 at 1).
The Complaint provides
detailed allegations concerning ACS’s coverage under the FLSA,
Grajales’s status as an employee, ACS’s alleged failure to
keep appropriate records, the alleged willfulness of the
purported
FLSA
violation,
conditional
certification,
exemptions from the FLSA’s overtime provision, and other
pertinent issues that may arise in this action.
Grajales’s
allegations
border
on
loquacious,
Although
the
Court
determines that Grajales has not filed a shotgun Complaint.
The Motion to Strike is thus denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant Accountable Climate Solutions, Inc.’s Motion to
-5-
Strike and for Repleader (Doc. # 10) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 9th
day of February, 2015.
Copies to:
All Counsel of Record
-6-
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?