# GUERRA v. MSC CRUISES, S.A. > District Court, S.D. Florida · February 1, 2024 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10122969 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, S.D. Florida - **Decided:** February 1, 2024 - **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/10122969 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10122969. Public record. Not legal advice.