DUNN

v.

NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD.

d/b/a NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE,

Defendant. ________________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon NCL (BAHAMAS) Ltd.’s (“NCL”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 7]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is

GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND1

A. Factual Background

On January 11, 2022, while aboard the NCL Norwegian Bliss, Plaintiff tripped and fell due to a misplaced deck chair and was injured. [ECF No. 1 ¶ 16]. After the fall, Defendant’s employees placed Plaintiff on a board to transfer him to a gurney. Id.¶ 24. Defendant’s employees then dropped Plaintiff, causing him to suffer further injury. Id. ¶ 25.

In a single count, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was negligent by committing one or more of the following acts or omissions (the “Risk Creating Conditions”):

B. Procedural History

On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant, alleging one count of negligence (“Count I”). On February 13, 2023, Defendant moved to dismiss arguing (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint is a shotgun pleading in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10, and (2) Plaintiff fails to adequately allege actual or constructive notice. [ECF No. 7].

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,’” meaning that it must contain “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

While a court must accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true, “conclusory allegations . . . are not entitled to an assumption of truth—legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations.” Randall v. Scott, 610 F. 3d 701, 709–10 (11th Cir. 2010). “[T]he pleadings are construed broadly,” Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat’l Bank, 437 F. 3d 1118, 1120 (11th Cir. 2006), and the allegations in the complaint are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bishop v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A., 817 F. 3d 1268, 1270 (11th Cir. 2016). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Therefore, a complaint that merely presents “labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not survive dismissal. Id. (internal quotation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint is a Shotgun Pleading A complaint that violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 is “often disparagingly referred to as [a] shotgun pleading[].” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F. 3d 1313, 1320 (11th

Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Eleventh Circuit generally considers a complaint to be a shotgun pleading if it: (1) “contain[s] 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. at 1321; (2) is “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action,” id. at 1322; (3) fails to “separate[] into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief,” id. at 1323; or (4) “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. Shotgun pleadings “fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests . . . and waste scarce judicial resources,

inexorably broaden the scope of discovery, wreak havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine the public’s respect for the courts.” Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (citations omitted). The Complaint must be dismissed because it violates the third Weiland category by failing to separate each cause of action into different counts. Specifically, Paragraph 48 of the Complaint alleges twenty-eight substantially different ways in which Defendant breached the duty of care it owed to Plaintiff. Courts in this District have recognized that each alleged breach of the duty of care must be pled separately. It is not sufficient to cast a wide net of purported breaches in an attempt to keep one negligence claim afloat. See Al-Hindi v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD., No. 22-24032-CIV, [ECF No. 16] (S.D. Fla. March 14, 2023); see also Reed vy. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 19-24668-CIV, 2021 WL 2592914, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2021) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the Complaint shall be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Defendant NCL (BAHAMAS) Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 7], is

GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. Plaintiff may request leave to file an amended complaint on or before July 7, 2023. Failure to do so may result in the Court dismissing this action with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 26th day of June, 2023.

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTR, JUDGE

ce: All Counsel of Record