Reese v. Carnival Corporation

Filing 36

SECOND ORDER STRIKING COMPLAINT AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Court strikes Reese's second amended complaint (ECF No. 35 ). Show Cause Response due by 9/14/2020. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 9/9/2020. See attached document for full details. (mc)

Download PDF
Case 1:20-cv-20475-RNS Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 1 of 2 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Kelley Reese, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-20475-Civ-Scola ) Carnival Corporation, Defendant. ) Second Order Striking Complaint and Order to Show Cause This matter is before the Court upon an independent review of the record. This maritime tort action arises from injuries Plaintiff Kelley Reese says she sustained when she slipped and fell while a passenger aboard Defendant Carnival Corporation’s vessel Dream. (2nd Am. Compl., ECF No. 35.) The Court struck Reese’s initial complaint as a shotgun pleading. (Order Striking Compl., ECF No. 3.) Thereafter Reese filed an amended complaint which ballooned from twenty-two pages and four counts (Compl., ECF No. 1) to forty-one pages and twenty counts (ECF No. 6). Thereafter, the Court granted Carnival’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, agreeing with Carnival that Reese sought to apply the incorrect standard of care in a number of her counts. (Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 21.) In that order, the Court ordered Reese to file a second amended complaint, consistent with the Court’s order. (Id. at 2.) Reese has now filed her second amended complaint. (ECF No. 35.) This latest version of the complaint, however, once again, like her initial complaint, is a shotgun complaint: (1) it crams multiple, distinct theories of liability into one claim; (2) it asserts the same “breaches” that the Court previously identified as “not appear[ing] to be based on duties that are even recognized as even being owed”; and (3) it presents the same duplicative “breaches” that the Court previously identified as redundant. (Order Striking Compl. at 1–2.) The Court was surprised to find itself having to explain these basic principles to counsel in the first instance. That the Court’s admonishments were completely disregarded by counsel thereafter, in the filing of Reese’s second amended complaint, is shocking. The Court pointedly alerted Reese to her complaint’s shortcoming and clearly warned her that her “failure to comply with th[e Court’s] order may result in the dismissal of [her] case with prejudice or other appropriate sanctions.” (Id. at 3.) The Court therefore orders Reese and her counsel to show cause on or before September 14, 2020, why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice and why the Court should not impose monetary sanctions for their failure to comply with the Court’s order. Case 1:20-cv-20475-RNS Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 2 of 2 In the meantime, for the reasons identified above and more fully explained in the Court’s order striking her initial complaint, the Court strikes Reese’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 35). Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida on September 9, 2020. Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge

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?