Brown v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

DANZELL BROWN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:23-cv-1269-TJC-PDB

v.

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a

foreign profit corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff, Danzell Brown, is suing his former employer alleging his

termination was improper. Doc. 5. His complaint has four counts: (1) disability

discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), (2) disability

discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), (3) Family and Medical

Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation, and (4) FMLA interference. Id. at 3–6. Defendant,

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., moves to dismiss the complaint, generally alleging each

count should be dismissed for failure to state a claim and that the complaint is an

improper shotgun pleading due to conclusory allegations and repeating the same

factual allegations to support all counts. Doc. 7. Brown has responded. Doc. 8.

1. BACKGROUND

Brown has six paragraphs of general allegations providing limited

information about his employment, including being hired in 2014, and that in 2022

he was terminated, rehired, and terminated again. Doc. 5 ¶¶ 8–13. Brown alleges

he has asthma, which has caused him to miss work. Id. ¶ 9. Brown alleges the

rehire and re-termination were to manipulate his FMLA eligibility. Id. ¶ 13.

Under Counts I and II, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and

FCRA, there are multiple examples of conclusory allegations that are either

insufficient to support a claim or are so conclusory that they render the complaint

an impermissible shotgun pleading. For example, Plaintiff alleges he “has a

physical impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities.”

Id. ¶¶ 16, 23. Apart from the mention of the asthma diagnosis, there is no

information about how Brown is substantially limited in a major life activity.1

There are similar problems with Counts III and IV. Under Count III, FMLA

retaliation, Plaintiff alleges he “engaged in activity protected by the FMLA” but

there is no other description of any activity that Brown claims constitutes protected

activity.2 See Id. ¶ 29. Under Count IV, FMLA interference, Plaintiff alleges there

was wrongful interference with his ability to take medical leave. Id. ¶ 34. The

1 The examples are intended to provide guidance for correction, but not all

examples of insufficient or conclusory allegations are identified in this order.

2 Brown mentions missing work but does not identify this as FMLA related.

factual allegations, however, only allege the rehire and subsequent termination

were an “effort to manipulate Plaintiff’s eligibility for FMLA for protection . . . [and

his] right to take protected medical leave.” Id. ¶ 13. There is no statement that

Brown was entitled to FMLA leave or sought leave that was denied.

2. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Complaints that violate Rule 8(a)(2) “are often disparagingly referred to as ‘shotgun

pleadings.’” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th

Cir. 2015). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized four basic types of shotgun

pleadings: (1) a complaint that contains multiple counts where each count adopts

the allegations of all preceding counts; (2) a complaint that is replete with

conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular

cause of action; (3) a complaint that fails to separate into different counts each

cause of action or claim for relief; and (4) a complaint that asserts multiple claims

against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are

responsible for which acts or omissions or which of the defendants the claim is

brought against. Id. at 1321–23. “The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun

pleadings is that they fail to one degree or another, and in one way or another, to

give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds

upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.

The focus here is on the second type of shotgun pleading. Brown incorporates

all of his factual allegations into every Count. Doc. 5 ¶¶ 14, 21, 28, 33. Simply put,

the same six paragraphs in the factual allegation are all used to support three

distinct claims: disability discrimination, FMLA retaliation, and FMLA

interference. The scant set of facts is either incomplete or too conclusory, especially

for the FMLA retaliation and interference claims.

The Eleventh Circuit has articulated that shotgun complaints are “altogether

unacceptable,” as they “exact an intolerable toll on the trial court’s docket . . . .”

Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Brown

must replead his claims to cure these deficiencies and provide clear notice to

Defendant of which facts support each Count. When Brown repleads, the

allegations must be clearly tied to one of the causes of action. And each count must

incorporate only allegations relevant to it. See Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878

F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that a district court must dismiss shotgun

pleadings and order the party to replead).3

3 The Court notes that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint

contained a Local Rule 3.01(g) Certification indicating counsel were not able to

confer. Doc. 7 at 15–16. In accordance with Local Rule 3.01(g)(3), counsel was

responsible to supplement the certification.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, Doc. 7, is

GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. 5, is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. No later than May 16, 2024, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint

consistent with the directives of this Order and in compliance with Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). No later than June 6, 2024, Defendant must respond to

the Amended Complaint.

A. The parties will continue to be governed by the Case Management and

Scheduling Order, Doc. 138.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 26th day of April,

2024.

Oe > Cimotheg Corrig on

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN

“= _~United States District Judge

ddw

Copies:

Counsel of record