Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pinto v. Collier County

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

November 5, 2019

FABIANO B. PINTO, Plaintiff,
v.
COLLIER COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

          TOM BARBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on several motions to dismiss:

(1) Defendant Collier County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. # 59);
(2) Defendants Byers, Campolo, Dillman, Maholtz, Mulholland, Pisano, and Thoman's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. # 60);
(3) Defendant Kevin Rambosk's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. # 61); and
(4) Defendant Matthew Kinney's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 67).

         Plaintiff Fabiano B. Pinto filed responses in opposition to each of the motions. (Doc. ## 68, 69, 70, 82). Defendants Collier County and Sheriff Kevin Rambosk each filed replies to the respective responses in opposition. (Doc. ## 80, 81). After reviewing the motions, responses, replies, court file, and the record, the Court finds as follows:

         Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). “Although Rule 8(a) does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' it does require ‘more than labels and conclusions'; a ‘formulaic recitation of the cause of action will not do.'” Young v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 18-62468, 2018 WL 7572240, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-62468-CIV, 2019 WL 1112274 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2019) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, factual allegations must be sufficient “to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

         When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, review is generally limited to the four corners of the complaint. Rickman v. Precisionaire, Inc., 902 F.Supp. 232, 233 (M.D. Fla. 1995). Furthermore, when reviewing a complaint for facial sufficiency, a court “must accept [a] [p]laintiff's well pleaded facts as true, and construe the [c]omplaint in the light most favorable to the [p]laintiff. Id. (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).

         Analysis

         Shotgun Pleading

         A shotgun pleading is one where “it is virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief” and the defendant therefore cannot be “expected to frame a responsive pleading.” See Anderson v. Dist. Bd. Of Trustees of Cent. Fla. Cmty. College, 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). The Eleventh Circuit has identified four primary types of shotgun pleadings:

(1) Complaints 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;
(2) Complaints that do not commit the mortal sin of re-alleging all preceding counts but are guilty of the venial sin of being replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.