DeMarcus v. University of South Alabama

S.D. Alabama

DeMarcus v. University of South Alabama

District Court, S.D. Alabama·Decided June 8, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-00380·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

RACHAEL DEMARCUS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-00380-KD-B ) UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ) ALABAMA, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and here having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 59), dated May 17, 2022, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, with modification, as follows: 1) The motions to dismiss (docs. 41, 42, 52) are dismissed without prejudice as moot; 2) The second amended complaint (doc. 55) is stricken; see Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 984 (11th Cir. 2008) abrogated on other grounds by 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)) (explaining that the district court “‘acting sua sponte, should have struck the plaintiff’s [shotgun] complaint . . . and instructed plaintiff’s counsel to file a more definite statement’”) (quoting Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trustees of Central Florida Community College, 77 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir.1996)) (bracketed text added) and 3) Plaintiffs shall file a third amended complaint that is not a shotgun pleading, i.e., a more definite statement, on or before June 15, 2022, and Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond on or before July 6, 2022. DONE and ORDERED this the 8th day of June 2022.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

RACHAEL DEMARCUS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-00380-KD-B ) UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ) ALABAMA, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and here having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 59), dated May 17, 2022, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, with modification, as follows: 1) The motions to dismiss (docs. 41, 42, 52) are dismissed without prejudice as moot; 2) The second amended complaint (doc. 55) is stricken; see Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 984 (11th Cir. 2008) abrogated on other grounds by 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)) (explaining that the district court “‘acting sua sponte, should have struck the plaintiff’s [shotgun] complaint . . . and instructed plaintiff’s counsel to file a more definite statement’”) (quoting Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trustees of Central Florida Community College, 77 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir.1996)) (bracketed text added) and 3) Plaintiffs shall file a third amended complaint that is not a shotgun pleading, i.e., a more definite statement, on or before June 15, 2022, and Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond on or before July 6, 2022. DONE and ORDERED this the 8th day of June 2022.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DeMarcus v. University of South Alabama, (S.D. Ala. 2022).

Pincite

DeMarcus v. University of South Alabama (DeMarcus v. University of South Alabama) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related