Rivera v. Feld Entertainment, Inc.
ORDER: Defendant Feld Entertainment, Inc's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 5) is granted. The Complaint is dismissed as a shotgun complaint. Rivera may file an amended complaint that is not a shotgun complaint by September 24, 2020. Failure to file an amended complaint by that date will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/10/2020. (AR) Modified on 9/10/2020 (AR).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JESUS YANEZ RIVERA,
Case No. 8:20-cv-1526-T-33CPT
FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
Complaint (Doc. # 5), filed on July 13, 2020. Plaintiff Jesus
Yanez Rivera responded on July 27, 2020. (Doc. # 16). For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
Rivera is a Hispanic male who was born in Mexico and now
is a legal resident of the United States. (Doc. # 1-1 at ¶
9). From October 2015 to or around May 2019, Rivera was
Entertainment. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 24). Throughout the course of
“negative treatment” and verbal and physical “harassment on
intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment.” (Id.
at ¶ 12-13).
Rivera further alleges that he brought this mistreatment
to the attention of his manager at FELD Entertainment and the
Human Resources Department, but “no corrective action was
harassment based on national origin, and due to [its] failure
to put an end to the [aforementioned] harassment.” (Id. at ¶
After exhausting his administrative remedies with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Rivera filed
this action in state court on June 9, 2020. (Doc. # 1-1). The
Complaint includes claims against Feld Entertainment for
violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act (Count I) and Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Count II). On July 6,
2020, Feld Entertainment removed the action to this Court on
the basis of federal-question jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1).
On July 13, 2020, Feld Entertainment moved to dismiss
impermissible shotgun pleading, (Doc. # 5), and Rivera has
responded. (Doc. # 16). The Motion is now ripe for review.
On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
allegations in the complaint and construes them in the light
Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004). Further,
the Court favors the plaintiff with all reasonable inferences
from the allegations in the complaint. Stephens v. Dep’t of
Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1571, 1573 (11th Cir. 1990).
[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide
the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative
(quotations and citations omitted). Courts are not “bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). The
Court must limit its consideration to “well-pleaded factual
complaint, and matters judicially noticed.” La Grasta v.
First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004).
“should be dismissed in its entirety because [it] is an
impermissible shotgun pleading.” (Doc. # 5 at 9). Because the
Court agrees the Complaint is a shotgun pleading, the Court
need only address this argument.
“A defendant served with a shotgun complaint should
move the district court to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) or for a more definite statement pursuant to
Rule 12(e) on the ground that the complaint provides it with
insufficient notice to enable it to file an answer.” Paylor
v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1126-27 (11th Cir.
2014) (footnotes omitted).
The Eleventh Circuit has “identified four rough types or
categories of shotgun pleadings”: (1) “a complaint containing
multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of
all preceding counts”; (2) a complaint that is “replete with
connected to any particular cause of action”; (3) a complaint
that does “not separat[e] into a different count each cause
of action or claim for relief”; and (4) a complaint that
without specifying which of the defendants are responsible
for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the
Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2015).
pleadings is that they fail to . . . give the defendants
adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds
upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.
Here, Feld Entertainment argues that the Complaint is a
shotgun pleading because it falls within the first category
identified in Weiland, as “Count II impermissibly ‘rolls’ all
preceding paragraphs — including the allegations of Count I
— into the allegations of Count II.” (Doc. # 5 at 10). Indeed,
Count II incorporates all preceding paragraphs. (Doc. # 1-1
at ¶ 30). This is impermissible. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at
1322 (identifying “a complaint containing multiple counts
where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding
counts” as a shotgun complaint).
“Because the Complaint is a shotgun complaint, repleader
is necessary and the Court need not delve into the merits of
the claims at this juncture.” Madak v. Nocco, No. 8:18-cv2665-T-33AEP, 2018 WL 6472337, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10,
2018); see also Shaffer v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon & Shellpoint
LLC, No. 8:17-cv-565-T-33AAS, 2017 WL 1653789, at *1 (M.D.
Fla. May 2, 2017) (“As the Court has determined that repleader
argument that all counts fail to state claims upon which
relief can be granted.”).
However, the Court notes Feld Entertainment’s concern
that the Complaint does not sufficiently clarify whether it
also contains a claim for hostile work environment, as well
as a claim for disparate treatment discrimination. (Doc. # 5
at 4). Therefore, for the sake of clarity, the Court suggests
that Rivera separate his disparate treatment discrimination
and hostile work environment claims into separate counts in
his amended complaint.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant Feld Entertainment, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. # 5) is GRANTED.
The Complaint is DISMISSED as a shotgun complaint.
Rivera may file an amended complaint that is not a
shotgun complaint by September 24, 2020. Failure to file
dismissal of this action without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
10th day of September, 2020.
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?