Michaud

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

GAETANE MICHAUD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-02043-JLB-AAS

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA,

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

MORSANI COLLEGE OF

MEDICINE, AND FLORIDA

HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER INC.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Gaetane Michaud’s Complaint against

Defendants University of South Florida Board of Trustees (“USFBT”), University of

South Florida (“USF”), University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine

(“USFMCM”), and Florida Health Science Center, Inc. (Doc. 1). For the reasons

stated below, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as an

impermissible shotgun pleading.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings a total of seven claims against four Defendants. (See Doc. 1).

The claims deal with discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the

American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (See id.). In response, USFMCM, USF,

and USFBT have filed motions to dismiss. (Doc. 23; Doc. 24; Doc. 25).

LEGAL STANDARD

“A district court has the ‘inherent authority to control its docket and ensure

the prompt resolution of lawsuits,’ which includes the ability to dismiss a complaint

on shotgun pleading grounds.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295

(11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313,

1320 (11th Cir. 2015)).

DISCUSSION

“A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.” Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324

(11th Cir. 2021) (citing Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320). Rule 8(a) requires a complaint

contain “a short and and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 10(b) requires that a party “state its

claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a

single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The “self-evident” purpose of the

rules is “to require the pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly” so the

adversary “can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading [and]

the court can determine which facts support which claims and whether the plaintiff

has stated any claims upon which relief can be granted.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320

(citation omitted).

There are four categories of shotgun pleadings. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–

23. The first and most common type “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.” Id. The second is a complaint “replete with conclusory,

vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of

action.” Id. The third type of shotgun pleading is one that does not “separat[e] into

a different count each cause of action or claim for relief.” Id. The fourth and final

category of shotgun pleading is one that “assert[s] 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.

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint falls into the first and fourth categories of a

shotgun pleading. (See generally Doc. 1). Each of the seven counts in the

Complaint adopts the allegations of the preceding counts. (Id. at ¶¶ 137, 142, 148,

154, 160, 165, 170). Further, the Complaint fails to allege which counts are brought

against which Defendant. (See Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 137–73). As a result, the Complaint

“fails . . . to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the

grounds upon which each claim rests.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323.

Because the Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading, the Court finds

dismissal without prejudice appropriate. Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d

1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[A] District Court retains authority to dismiss a

shotgun pleading on that basis alone.”). The Court will provide Plaintiff leave to

amend her Complaint to be filed within 21 days from the date of this Order. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave when justice so

requires.”); Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2018)

(“When a litigant files a shotgun pleading, is represented by counsel, and fails to

request leave to amend, a district court must sua sponte give him one chance to

replead before dismissing his case with prejudice on non-merits shotgun pleading

grounds.”).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, itis ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

(2) Defendant University of South Florida’s and Defendant University of

South Florida Morsani College of Medicine’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

23) is DENIED as moot.

(83) Defendant University of South Florida Board of Trustees’s motions to

dismiss (Doc. 24; Doc. 25) are DENIED as moot.

(4) Defendant University of South Florida Board of Trustees’s Unopposed

Motion to Stay (Doc. 27) is DENIED as moot.

(5) Plaintiff provided leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days

from the date of this Order. No new claims may be added to the

amended complaint. Failure to timely file an amended complaint will

result in the dismissal of this case without further notice of the Court.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 16, 2025.

JOHN L. BADALAMENTI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE