GUERRA v. MSC CRUISES, S.A.

United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Martin Guerra, Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 23-23366-Civ-Scola

)

MSC Cruises, S.A., 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

Martin Guerra when he slipped and fell while a passenger aboard a ship operated

by Defendant MSC Cruises, S.A. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) In the complaint, Guerra

asserts three counts against MSC Cruises: negligent failure to warn; negligent

maintenance; and general negligence. (Id. ¶¶ 14-32.) Within each count, Guerra

alleges multiple ways in which MSC Cruises breached its duty of care to Guerra.

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 ¶ 30.d. (“Negligently placing a hand sanitizer in the subject area.”)) Others are

redundant. (Compare, e.g., id. at ¶ 24.b. (“Failure to maintain the subject area

in clean and dry manner so that passengers, including the Plaintiff, were

reasonably safe aboard the vessel”) with id. at ¶ 24.c. (“Failure to maintain a

reasonably safe walking area so that passengers, including the Plaintiff, had were

[sic] reasonably safe aboard the vessel”).)

“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. (cleaned up). 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.

Guerra attempts to fit multiple distinct theories of liability into his claims.

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. Guerra may file an amended complaint by February 15, 2024,

provided it complies with this order, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and

10(b), and the Iqbal/Twombly standard. Furthermore, Guerra is admonished not

to include redundant claims or counts in the amended pleading.

Guerra 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.” (cleaned up)).

In light of the above, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs

complaint is denied without prejudice (ECF No. 10).

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida on_ February 2024. 2

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge