Santarsiero v. Martin

GAY SANTARSIERO, LORI MADDOX, LINDA SQUADRITO, FRANCES FRANCIONE, ARDIS BALIS, AND ANNE MARIE PETRILLI, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN MARTIN, LOU FRANCO, ALEX CHEPURNEY, SHERYL FRANCO, and SUSAN PERRIER, Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00435-FtM-29NPM

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

July 8, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN E. STEELE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on review of defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (Doc. #45) filed on February 1, 2021, to which plaintiffs filed an Opposition to defendant's Motion (Doc. #49) on March 15, 2021.

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

I.

This case involves an ongoing dispute over access to and maintenance of common areas and amenities in the Edgewater Village (Edgewater) condominium complex in Punta Gorda Florida, that has arisen between six pro se Florida plaintiffs and five Canadian defendants, all of whom are either part-time or full-time residents at Edgewater. (Doc #44, ¶¶ 2-3, 8-18.) On January 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleging fourteen causes of action against only five of the initial twelve defendants - John Martin, Lou Franco, Alex Chepurney, Susan Perrier, and Sheryl Franco (collectively Defendants). (Doc #44.) The Complaint alleges the following claims: (1) breach of contract/failure by defendant John Martin to maintain common elements (areas); (2) breach of contract/failure by defendant L. Franco to maintain common elements (areas); (3) breach of contract/failure by defendant Alex Chepurney to maintain common elements (areas); (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by defendant Franco against pro se plaintiff Ardis Balis; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by defendant Franco against pro se plaintiff Lori Maddox; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by defendant John Martin against pro se plaintiff Lori Maddox; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by defendant Franco against pro se plaintiff Frances Francione; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by defendant Franco against pro se plaintiff Anne Marie Petrilli; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by defendant Franco against pro se plaintiff Gay Santarsiero; (10) defamation of pro se plaintiff Ardis Balis' character by defendant Franco; (11) wrongful conversion of property by defendant Sheryl Franco; (12)

“Franco acting beyond board authority”; (13) voter fraud by defendants Franco, Martin and Perrier; (14) defendant Martin's failure to provide requested documents/destruction of material documents. (Id., pp. 4-48.)

II.

Defendants urge the Court to dismiss the SAC in its entirety and raise numerous arguments as to why each claim in the SAC should be dismissed. (Doc. #45.) The Court addresses Defendants' arguments in turn below.

A. Shotgun Pleading

Defendants move to dismiss each count because the SAC remains a shotgun pleading and otherwise does not comply with the pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (Doc. #45.) Specifically, Defendants argue all fourteen counts of the SAC should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have improperly brought claims against multiple Defendants and brought multiple causes of action in each count. (Id., pp. 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20, 22, 25, 27-28, 30, 33, 36.) Upon review of the SAC, the Court agrees.

On July 8, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which asserted ten claims against some or all of the initial twelve named defendants for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, defamation of character, wrongful conversion of property, board action beyond its authority, voter fraud, sexual harassment, failure to provide requested documents, and negligence. (Doc. #5.) The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for various reasons, one of which was because it was a shotgun pleading. See Santarsiero v. Martin, No. 2:20-cv-00435-FtM-29NPM, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237961 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2020). In its Order, the Court explained that the Amended Complaint was a shotgun pleading in two respects. First, it adopted all the preceding paragraphs causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire Amended Complaint in violation of Federal Rule 8(a). Id., at *12, 14, 16, 18-19 n.8, 21, 23. Second, each count failed to identify the specific facts and the particular nature of the violations that each defendant allegedly committed, generally lumping defendants together under each count. Id., at *8-9, 1112, 17.

In compliance with Eleventh Circuit case law, the Court gave Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a second (and final) amended complaint and to remedy such deficiencies, stating:

The Court has serious questions concerning whether many of the counts in the Amended Complaint are capable of being adequately pled, whether the federal amount in controversy can be satisfied, and whether plaintiffs can assert their claims in a single complaint. The Court will allow plaintiffs one more opportunity to plead proper causes of action against proper defendants in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For additional resources and assistance, plaintiffs may wish to consult the “Proceeding Without a Lawyer” resources on filing a pro se complaint that are provided on the Court's website, at http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/prose/default.htm. The website provides guidelines for filing (in light of the Coronavirus), answers to frequently-asked questions, a glossary of legal terms, and sample forms. There is also a link that, through a series of questions, may help plaintiffs generate an amended complaint. See https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/ forms/all/litigantswithoutlawyers-forms.

Finally, some general instructions for filing a complaint include: the amended complaint must (1) assert each claim in a separate numbered count, (2) clearly identify the specific defendant(s) against whom each claim is asserted, (3) clearly explain the factual allegations supporting each claim and their application to each defendant against whom the claim is asserted, (4) avoid vague, generalized, conclusory, contradictory or irrelevant assertions, and (5) avoid incorporating prior counts into those which follow.

Santarsiero, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237961, at *23-24.

In the instant case, the SAC states in each and every count that “Pro se plaintiffs incorporate and restate each of the paragraphs 1 through 7 above as if fully set forth herein.” (Doc. #44, ¶¶ 19, 37, 53, 69, 85, 99, 117, 135, 151, 163, 176, 183, 192, 200.) While most of the identified paragraphs set forth facts to support subject matter jurisdiction and proper venue, incorporation of Paragraph 5 is problematic because it brings additional causes of action by plaintiff Petrilli against additional Defendants, stating:

5. Pro se defendant [sic] Petrilli suffered damages derived from (i) her being wrongfully forced to sell one of her condo units by L. Franco, at a substantial loss, (ii) the breach by defendant L. Franco and Martin, of her implied contract with them and the failure by them to maintain and keep open the Edgewater Condominium Association, Inc. (EWV) common elements, including the pool, club house, rest rooms, tennis courts, and other common amenities as required by the rules of the EWV Association, (iii) the failure by Martin to maintain flood insurance as required thereby reducing the value of her other Units by no less than 30% because all subsequent potential buyers are required to purchase in all cash transactions without the ability to obtain a mortgage and her consequent inability to sell her other units at fair market value as a result thereof, and (iv) the pattern of extremely abusive, over the top intentional harassing conduct and threats made by defendant L. Franco towards her, causing her extreme physical and emotional harm and distress.

(Id. at ¶ 5.)

The Eleventh Circuit has identified four types of categories of shotgun pleadings, one of which includes not separating into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015). Here, Plaintiffs have at the very least alleged that plaintiff Petrilli is bringing causes of action for breach of an implied contract, harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendants Lou Franco and/or John Martin, along with other causes of action stated in each count. Since Plaintiffs have failed to separate Petrilli's claims for relief into different counts, incorporation of Paragraph 5 in each cause of action of the SAC constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading.

A district court has the "inherent authority to control its docket and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits," which includes the ability to dismiss a complaint on shotgun pleading grounds. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320. Nonetheless, the Court concludes that the proper remedy is less drastic in this case. The Court will strike paragraph 5, thereby eliminating consideration of those matters from Count I through Count XIV of the SAC.

B. Failure to State a Claim

Defendants further argue that each of the fourteen counts set forth in the SAC should be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), an amended complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This obligation “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a...