United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant LP Port Charlotte,
LLC’s Motion to Dismiss filed on April 4, 2017. (Doc.
40). Plaintiff Marie Gerda Jean filed a Response in
Opposition on April 18, 2017. (Doc. 41). This matter is ripe
action stems from both an arbitration award and allegations
of discrimination and retaliation. (Docs. 37 at 1; 37-1).
Jean sued LP Port Charlotte in Florida state court for breach
of contract, discrimination, and retaliation. (Doc. 2).
Thereafter, LP Port Charlotte removed the case. (Doc. 1).
Jean then filed an amended complaint (Doc. 29) followed by LP
Port Charlotte’s first motion to dismiss. (Doc. 33).
The Court granted LP Port Charlotte’s motion to dismiss
and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. (Doc.
36). Jean then filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 37)
pursuing these claims:
• Count I - Breach of Contract - Enforcement of
• Count II - Action per Federal Arbitration Act;
• Count III - Employment Discrimination Under the
Florida Civil Rights Act;
• Count IV - Retaliation Under the Florida Civil Rights
• Count V - Employment Discrimination Under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; and
• Count VI - Retaliation Under Title VII.
Charlotte now moves to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 40 at 1). Jean argues her
pleading is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. (Doc
41 at 2). The Court disagrees. For the reasons stated below,
the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of a complaint under
the federal pleading rules. A claim fails this inspection if
it asserts a legal theory that is not cognizable as a matter
of law, or because its factual account is implausible.
See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 & 570 (2007). When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, the court presumes all well-pled factual allegations
to be true, resolves all reasonable doubts and inferences in
the plaintiffs favor, and views the complaint in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. See
Id. at 555. A plaintiff must do more than offer
labels, conclusions, and “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678. The court will not accept as true bald
assertions, conclusions, or legal conclusions
“couched” as facts. Id. at 678-79;
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. For claims to survive a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, therefore, the plaintiff’s
allegations “must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A claim
is facially plausible where the facts alleged permit the
court to reasonably infer that defendant’s alleged
misconduct was unlawful. Id.
the standard established under Iqbal-Twombly,
plaintiffs must avoid shotgun pleadings. Since its inception,
the Eleventh Circuit has waged an unceasing fight against
shotgun pleadings. SeeWeiland v. Palm Beach
County Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th
Cir. 2015). The most common shotgun pleading 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 it and the
last count to be a combination of the entire
complaint.” Id.When faced with a shotgun