Opinion
CASE NO. 01-5093-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
May 23, 2002
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Radioshack Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (D.E. 3), filed February 25, 2002. On March 20, 2002, Plaintiff Marjorie Harris responded to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (D.E. 10.) On March 29, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss. (D.E. 12.) Based on its review of the Motion, the Response, the Reply and the record, the Court finds as follows.
I. Factual Background
The following allegations are drawn from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, a black Haitian female, was continuously employed by Defendant as a sales associate from April 1998 until May 2000. (Compl. ¶ 9.) In December 1999, David De Villavicencio, a Cuban-American District Manger, began to engage in disparate, unlawful and discriminatory treatment toward Plaintiff and other African-American employees. (Id. ¶ 13.) Prior to De Villavicencio's appointment as District Manager, Plaintiff's performance as a Sales Associate was consistently rated above average by her superiors. (Id. ¶ 11.) During 1999 and 2000, De Villacivencio made racially offensive comments to Plaintiff, applied company policy in a racially biased and disparate manner, conducted improper investigations of African-American employees, and intentionally issued poor ratings to African American employees. (Id. ¶¶ 15-24.)
Plaintiff alleges that she was one of over a dozen black employees terminated, demoted or transferred out of the district as part of a calculated and systematic course of conduct by De Villavicencio during his employment as South Florida District Manager. (Id. ¶ 24.) In particular, Plaintiff alleges that De Villavicencio interrogated her at length about a romantic relationship she was rumored to have with another employee, even after both individuals denied the accusation. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff later learned that the rumor had been started by De Villavicencio. (Id.) On May 16, 2000, Plaintiff was involved in a verbal altercation with two employees, who were previously recruited to gather and fabricate derogatory information about Plaintiff and her manager. (Id. ¶ 19.) After complaining to De Villavicencio, he told Plaintiff on May 17, 2000 that she was to be transferred to another store. (Id. ¶ 20.) In violation of Radioshack's policy and practice to allow transferred employees to determine their future location, De Villavicencio denied Plaintiffs request to be transferred to a store in Aventura on the basis that only Spanish speaking people could
work at that store. (Id. ¶ 21.) De Villavicencio then terminated Plaintiff without further explanation. (Id. ¶ 22.) On August 31, 2000, Plaintiff filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Florida Commission on Human Rights. (Id. ¶ 25, Ex. A.)
On December 20, 2001, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint, asserting claims of(1) Race Discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. (Count I); Race and National Origin Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count II); and (3) Race Discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Florida Statutes § 760.10 (Count III).
II. Standard of Review
In evaluating a motion to dismiss, a district court must view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974). A complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action "unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108, 1111-12 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
Several provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure address the need for pleadings to be clear and precise in order to allow the opposing party an opportunity to frame a responsive pleading. A court's failure to require parties to adhere to these rules distorts the adversarial process and "imperils fundamental principles of due process." Bonnie L. ex rel. Hadsock v. Bush, 180 F. Supp.2d 1321, 1348 (S.D. Fla. 2001); Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1130 n. 107 (11th Cir. 2001).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides in pertinent part that:
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Rule 8(e) similarly requires pleadings to be simple, concise and direct.
Furthermore, Rule 10(b) mandates that "each claim [be] founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence . . ." Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). A proper complaint "will present each claim for relief in a separate count, as required by Rule 10(b), and with such clarity and precision that the defendant will be able to discern what the plaintiff is claiming." Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees of Cent. Fla. Community College, 77 F.3d 364, 366-67 (11th Cir. 1996); Cesnick v. Edgewood Baptist Church, 88 F.3d 902, 905-07 (11th Cir. 1996) (dismissing a "shotgun" pleading framed in complete disregard of the principle that separate causes of action should be plead in separate counts.")
III. Analysis
Plaintiffs Complaint combines and conflates separate causes of action within the same count in violation of Rule 10(b). In Count I, Plaintiff raises claims of racial discrimination under Title VII, including claims of harassment, disparate treatment, hostile work environment, demotion and constructive discharge. In Count II, Plaintiff alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 on grounds that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because of his race and national origin, employed a pretextual basis for demoting and discharging Plaintiff, and engaged in disparate treatment. If Plaintiff desires to assert discrimination claims under various theories, these claims must be asserted in separate counts in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b).
In her Response, Plaintiff asserts that the words "national origin" were inadvertently included in the Complaint and asks that these terms be struck. (Resp. at 1, n. 1) The Court finds this request insufficient to remedy the entire Complaint, which should be dismissed and superceded by an amended complaint.
In addition, Plaintiff incorporates her factual allegations wholesale into each and every count of the Complaint. Many of these allegations state generally that African-American employees were unlawfully demoted, transferred or terminated. These allegations are incorporated wholesale into each count, even though it appears that Plaintiff may have been terminated rather than transferred or fired. Such "shotgun" pleading, coupled with the commingling of various theories of liability within individual counts, renders Plaintiffs Complaint an inappropriate basis upon which to evaluate her allegations. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
(1) Defendant Radioshack Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (D.E. 3), filed February 25, 2002, is GRANTED.
(2) Plaintiff Marjorie Harris shall have ten (10) days from the date of this Order to file an Amended Complaint.
(3) This case is CLOSED.
(4) All pending motions not ruled upon separately are DENIED as moot.