The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ANNTONIA MIRO,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:25-cv-571-PGB-DCI
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF
VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant The School Board of
Volusia County, Florida’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15 (the
“Motion”)), and Plaintiff Anntonia Miro’s (“Plaintiff”) response thereto. (Doc.
17). Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be granted in part and denied as
moot in part, solely for the reasons stated herein.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant on March 31, 2025. (Doc. 1).
Then, on April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint (Doc. 6 (the
“Amended Complaint”)). Therein, Plaintiff asserts two counts for Defendant’s
alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, respectively. (Id.).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, to survive a
motion to dismiss made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the
complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
A claim is plausible on its face when the plaintiff “pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Id. The court must view the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and must resolve any doubts as to the sufficiency of the
complaint in the plaintiff’s favor. Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1484
(11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). However, though a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, pleading mere legal conclusions, or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” is not enough to satisfy the
plausibility standard. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “While legal conclusions can
provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
allegations,” and the court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S.
265, 286 (1986).
In sum, the court must: reject conclusory allegations, bald legal assertions,
and formulaic recitations of the elements of a claim; accept well-pled factual
allegations as true; and view well-pled allegations in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is a shotgun
pleading, and the Court agrees. (Doc. 15, p. 14 n.2).
The Eleventh Circuit has “been roundly, repeatedly, and consistently
condemning [shotgun pleadings] for years. . . .” Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,
516 F.3d 955, 979 (11th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Ashcroft, 556
U.S. 662. There are four acknowledged types of shotgun pleadings:
The most common type—by a long shot—is a complaint
containing multiple counts where each count adopts the
allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive
count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a
combination of the entire complaint. The next most common
type . . . is a complaint . . . replete with conclusory, vague, and
immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular
cause of action. The third type of shotgun pleading is one that
commits the sin of not separating into a different count each
cause of action or claim for relief. Fourth, and finally, there is
the relatively rare sin of asserting 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.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir.
2015).
Here, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint clearly falls within the
first category of shotgun pleadings, “adopt[ing] the allegations of all preceding
counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last
count to be a combination of the entire complaint.” See id. at 1321–23; (Doc. 6, ¶¶
38, 44). Simply put, a complaint is not a guessing game, and Defendant must have
“adequate notice of the claims against [it] and the grounds upon which each claim
rests.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323. Consequently, repleader is necessary to cure the
deficiencies specified herein.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant The School Board of Volusia County, Florida’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 15) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED AS
MOOT IN PART.
a. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as a shotgun pleading.
b. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is DENIED AS MOOT in all
other respects.
2. On or before September 2, 2025, Plaintiff may file an amended
complaint consistent with the directives of this Order and all
applicable rules and law. Failure to timely file an amended complaint
may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and
without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 22, 2025.
ewe
PAUL G.
UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties