United States District Court, S.D. Florida
P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's “Third” Amended
Complaint and Motion to Strike [ECF No. 64]. The Court has
reviewed the Motion, the record, and the applicable law. For
the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is
GRANTED in part.
Robert Joseph Sarhan (“Plaintiff”) is a physician
who worked as an adjunct professor at Miami-Dade College.
Plaintiff contends that The Board of Trustees of Miami-Dade
College (“Defendant”) discriminated against him
on the basis of race and national origin when it denied him a
full-time teaching position in Defendant's Physician
Assistant Program. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant
retaliated against him after he filed a charge with the EEOC.
March 16, 2016, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a
Complaint against Miami-Dade College. [ECF No. 1]. Defendant
moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff: (1) named the wrong
party as The Board of Trustees of Miami-Dade College was the
proper defendant; (2) failed to properly serve Defendant; (3)
failed to state a claim; and (4) improperly requested
punitive damages. [ECF No. 10].
Complaint (Second Attempt)
31, 2016, before the Court ruled on Defendant's fully
briefed motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, now naming Defendant as the proper party. [ECF No.
14]. Defendant moved to dismiss, again arguing improper
service and failure to state a claim. On October 21, 2016,
the Court granted Defendant's motion, finding that
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was a shot gun pleading
because each count improperly adopted the allegations of all
preceding counts. [ECF No. 33]. The Court directed Plaintiff
to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before November 4,
2016, and instructed Plaintiff that failure to do so would
result in dismissal of the action. Plaintiff failed to timely
file a Second Amended Complaint and, on November 7, 2016, the
Court dismissed this action without prejudice.
Amended Complaint (Third Attempt)
November 15, 2016, Plaintiff moved to reopen the action,
arguing that he did not receive the Order dismissing his
Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 39]. The Court permitted
Plaintiff to amend his claims and, on December 21, 2016,
Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 46].
On January 4, 2017, Defendant moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, again arguing improper service and failure
to state a claim. [ECF No. 47]. Rather than respond to the
Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint
without requesting leave of Court. [ECF No. 49]. Plaintiff
then filed a belated request for leave to file his Third
Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 52].
Amended Complaint (Fourth Attempt)
On September 22, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff's
request to file a Third Amended Complaint and designated ECF
No. 49 to be the operative complaint. On October 11, 2017,
Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss [ECF No.