# WALDSTEIN v. Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited

> District Court, S.D. Florida · October 3, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10122594

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Florida
- **Decided:** October 3, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10122594

## Opinion text

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida

Randi Waldstein, Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
Civil Action No. 23-21107-Civ-Scola
)
Virgin Cruises Intermediate )
Limited, Defendant. )

Order Striking Complaint
This matter is before the Court on an independent review of the record.
This maritime tort action arises from injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff
Randi Waldstein when she slipped and fell while a passenger aboard a ship
operated by Defendant Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)
In her complaint, Waldstein asserts one count of negligence against Virgin
Cruises Intermediate Limited. (Id. ¶¶ 9-18.) Within the one count of negligence,
Waldstein alleges twelve ways by which Virgin Cruises breached four duties to
Waldstein. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) Many of these “breaches” raise distinct theories of
liability, some of which do not appear to be based on duties that are even alleged
or cognizable. (E.g., Compl. at ¶ 14.j. (“Failing to place the pool chairs and
lounges in a manner that would minimize or mitigate any dangers from
passengers falling in the area.”)) Others are redundant. (Compare, e.g., id. at ¶
14.c. (“Failing to remove the substance from the floor . . . .”) with id. at ¶ 14.h.
(“Failing to keep the area free from liquid and other hazards.”))
“Courts in the Eleventh Circuit have little tolerance for shotgun
pleadings.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294-95 (11th Cir.
2018). They violate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b), “waste
scarce judicial resources, inexorably broaden the scope of discovery, wreak
havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine the public’s respect for the
courts.” Id. (quotations and alterations omitted). When presented with a shotgun
pleading, a district court “should strike the pleading and instruct counsel to
replead the case—if counsel could in good faith make the representations
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).” Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348,
1357-58 (11th Cir. 2018) (“This is so even when the other party does not move
to strike the pleading”). One type of shotgun pleading is where a complaint fails
to “separate[] into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief.”
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1322-23, n.13 (11th
Cir. 2015). The complaint here is this type of shotgun pleading.
Waldstein attempts to fit multiple distinct theories of liability into the
single “negligence” count. (Compl. at ¶¶ 10-17.) Each distinct theory, however,
is a separate cause of action that must be asserted independently and with
corresponding supporting factual allegations. See Garcia v. Carnival Corp., 838
F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1337, n.2 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (Moore, J.) (dismissing maritime
negligence claim that “epitomizes a form of ‘shotgun’ pleading,” where the
plaintiff alleged that the defendant owed a duty of “reasonable care under the
circumstances,” and then “proceed[ed] to allege at least twenty-one ways in
which [the d]efendant breached this duty”); Brown v. Carnival Corp., 202 F.
Supp. 3d 1332, 1338 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (Ungaro, J.) (“Simply alleging that Carnival
owed Plaintiff a duty of ‘reasonable care’ in a conclusory fashion, while also
pleading [“forty-one”] alleged breaches that purport to impose a heightened duty
upon Carnival, is not sufficient to state a valid negligence claim under maritime
law,” and holding that “the burden will remain on Plaintiff to review her
Complaint and ensure that each factual allegation is supported by law and
plausible facts, and is alleged in good faith.”); Gayou v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.,
No. 11-23359-Civ, 2012 WL 2049431, at *5-*6, n.2 (S.D. Fla. June 5, 2012)
(Scola, J.) (ordering plaintiff to amend complaint to “separately allege an
independent count” for various theories of liability that were lumped into a single
maritime negligence claim); Flaherty v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 15-
22295, 2015 WL 8227674, *3 n.3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2015) (Lenard, J.) (same);
Doe v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2016 WL 6330587, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016)
(Ungaro, J.) (holding that Plaintiff’s “boilerplate allegations” of breach of duty
failed to state a claim for negligent hiring and retention, training and supervision
under maritime law, and ordering Plaintiff to “allege each of these three claims
in separate Counts” in an amended complaint (emphasis in original)); Ciethami
v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 3d 1345, 1349-50 (S.D. Fla. 2016)
(Williams, J.) (holding that maritime negligence claim failed Rule 8(a), where the
Plaintiff’s “shotgun-style recitation[]” of “34 breaches of duty,” “without any
factual context,” makes “any meaningful assessment of her claims difficult”);
Gharfeh v. Carnival Corp., No. 17-20499, 2018 WL 501270, at *3, *6-*7 (S.D. Fla.
Jan. 22, 2018) (Goodman, Mag. J.) (dismissing maritime negligence count that
“improperly commingles claims” as an “impermissible shotgun pleading”); Ward
v. Carnival Cruises, No. 17-24628, 2019 WL 342027, at **2-3, n.1, n.2 (S.D. Fla.
Jan. 28, 2019) (Scola, J.) (collecting cases).
Accordingly, the Court strikes the complaint, (ECF No. 1), as a shotgun
pleading. Waldstein may file an amended complaint by October 13, 2023,
provided it complies with this order, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and
10(b), and the Iqbal/Twombly standard. Furthermore, Waldstein is admonished
not to include redundant claims or counts in her amended pleading.
Waldstein is forewarned that failure to comply with this order may result
in the dismissal of this case with prejudice or other appropriate sanctions. See
Jackson, 898 F.3d at 1358-59 (instructing that “if the plaintiff fails to comply
with the court’s order—by filing a repleader with the same deficiency—the court
should strike his pleading or, depending on the circumstances, dismiss his case
and consider the imposition of monetary sanctions.” (quotations omitted)).
In light of the above, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs
complaint is denied without prejudice (ECF No. 14).
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida on October 3, 2023.
foo N. fe Jr.
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10122594. Public record. Not legal advice.