Hamil et al v. Acts Westminster

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SLOAN HAMIL, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-00366-KD-B
)
ACTS RETIREMENT-LIFE 	)
COMMUNITIES, INC., et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
This action is before the Court upon sua sponte review of the complaint filed by Plaintiffs
Sloan Hamil, Katherine L. Howerin, Jennifer Sigley, and Tina Wolfe (doc. 1). Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Counts I through IV) and
certain state laws (Counts V through XV).
I. Analysis
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a 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). Rule 8(a)(2)’s purpose is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . .
. claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (quotation omitted). “[T]his rule aims to enable the responding party to identify the
pleader’s claim, frame a responsive pleading, and to permit the court to determine which facts
are intended to support which claims.” Pouyeh v. Pub. Health Tr. of Jackson Health Sys., 832 F.
App’x 616, 622–23 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). “When a plaintiff files a shotgun pleading, he
fails to satisfy these basic requirements. Such a pleading is never plain because it is impossible
Case 1:22-cv-00366-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 10/12/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

2
to comprehend which specific factual allegations the plaintiff intends to support which of his
causes of action, or how they do so.” Est. of Bass v. Regions Bank, Inc., 947 F.3d 1352, 1358
(11th Cir. 2020).
The Eleventh Circuit has roughly identified four broad categories of shotgun pleadings:
(1) those in which “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) those that do not re-allege all preceding counts but are “replete with conclusory,
vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action;”
(3) those that do not separate each cause of action or claim for relief into a different
count; and
(4) those that assert “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.”
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321-23 (11th Cir. 2015).
Although there are different types of shotgun pleadings, their “unifying characteristic . . . is that
they fail to one degree or another, and in one way or another, to give the defendants adequate
notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.
Plaintiffs’ complaint falls into the first shotgun pleading category because it makes the
fundamental error of incorporating all paragraphs in each count, thus “causing each successive
count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire
complaint.” See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321. This manner of pleading “imposes a heavy burden
on the trial court, for it must sift each count for the allegations that pertain to the cause of action
purportedly stated and, in the process, disregard the allegations that only pertain to the
incorporated counts.” U.S. ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350, 1354 n.6 (11th Cir. 2006).
Case 1:22-cv-00366-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 10/12/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

3
For example, Plaintiffs “incorporate” all the preceding paragraphs that form their four counts
brought pursuant to Title VII1 into their claim of “Violation of Alabama State Law” in Count V
(doc. 1, p. 83).
Even if Plaintiffs had not incorporated all paragraphs in each count, discerning the
precise factual basis for each Plaintiff’s claims in this case would be nearly impossible. The
complaint is oppressively and unnecessarily long, consisting of 105 pages composed of 358
numbered paragraphs. The complaint is verbose, repetitive, and conclusory, making it extremely
difficult to review. The complaint contains adjectives, labels,2 conclusions, and immaterial
factual details that significantly increase the length and repetitiveness of the complaint without
adding any factual substance to Plaintiffs’ claims. Furthermore, the complaint contains
numerous legal citations and legal arguments, as in the “Background” section and certain
subparagraphs in the “Facts” section (doc. 1, p. 33-47),3 that are inappropriate in a complaint.
1 “Defendant’s Failure to Accommodate – Religious Discrimination” (Count I),
“Defendant’s Disparate Treatment – Religious Discrimination” (Count II), “Defendant’s
Creation of a Hostile Work Environment” (Count III), and “Defendants’ Harassment on
Religious Grounds” (Count IV).
2 Plaintiffs frequently refer to “Defendant’s senior leaders” or “senior leadership” or
“Board of Directors” as persons who have violated Title VII and Alabama law.
3 Subparagraphs C and D appear to be arguments in response to Defendants’ defenses or
explanations which were made during the EEOC process: “Defendant purported three (3)
primary reasons as to why four (4) lone Plaintiffs constitute an undue hardship upon the facility.
These primary reasons are easily proven false given objective data available at the time,
improperly provided to the EEOC, and were improperly relied upon by the EEOC in its
decision” (doc. 1, p. 33); “In making its no-cause determination, the EEOC was called upon by
Defendant to rely upon proffered explanations that were proven false in the aforementioned-
paragraphs. … Defendant knew or should have known that such proffered statements were not
true; thus, Defendant's proffered statements should not have been considered by the EEOC. . . .
Accordingly, the EEOC's no-cause determinations regarding Plaintiffs' charges of discrimination
against Defendant are tainted with intentionally made or reckless statements that are not based in
fact.” (Id., p. 43). In Subparagraph F, in part, Plaintiffs argue that certain remedial actions taken
(Continued)
Case 1:22-cv-00366-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 10/12/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

4
See, e.g., Curry v. Burwell, 2015 WL 12867004, at *3 (N.D. Ga. May 1, 2015) (“Citations to
case law are never appropriate in a complaint, but rather may be raised at the time of trial or in
an appropriate motion.”).
The complaint also falls into the fourth shotgun pleading category. Plaintiffs repeatedly
combine their distinct claims by bringing a single count by all four Plaintiffs against all three
Defendants without specifying which factual allegations are intended to support each Plaintiff’s
cause of action against each Defendant, and without making clear which of the Defendants are
alleged to be responsible for each of the relevant acts or omissions alleged.
“[A] district court that receives a shotgun pleading should strike it and instruct counsel to
replead the case—even if the other party does not move the court to strike the pleading.” Est. of
Bass, 947 F.3d at 1358 (citing Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1357-58 (11th Cir.
2018)). “In dismissing a shotgun complaint for noncompliance with Rule 8(a), a district court
must give the plaintiff ‘one chance to remedy such deficiencies.’” Jackson, 898 F.3d at 1358
(quoting Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018)). “Where a
plaintiff fails to make meaningful modifications to her [shotgun] complaint, a district court may
dismiss the case under the authority of either Rule 41(b) or the court’s inherent power to manage
its docket.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321 n.10.
II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ complaint (doc. 1) is STRICKEN as an
impermissible shotgun pleading. Plaintiffs are GRANTED LEAVE to file a first amended
complaint on or before October 27, 2022.
by Defendants are evidence of their intent to discriminate. Plaintiffs also respond to certain
“claims” allegedly made by Defendants (Id., p. 59-63).
Case 1:22-cv-00366-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 10/12/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

5
In drafting the first amended complaint, Plaintiffs’ counsel must keep in mind that
Plaintiffs are not required to prove their claims in their complaint. The purpose of Rule 8 is to
give notice to the other parties in the form of a “short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief;” not to formulate or discuss issues, make legal arguments or
citations, or fully summarize the facts involved or the plaintiffs’ legal positions or beliefs. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Thus, Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint must clearly and briefly set forth
the facts in support of each Plaintiff’s claim against each Defendant, and it should supply only
the facts necessary to allow the Court to reasonably infer that the Defendants are liable for the
misconduct alleged. In addition, counsel must avoid the use of numerous and unnecessary
adjectives, unnecessary argument and evidentiary information to rebut statements allegedly made
by the Defendants, and avoid repeating the same allegations or conclusions multiple times.
Plaintiffs are hereby cautioned that the failure to timely plead a first amended complaint
that corrects the deficiencies noted in this Order and complies with Rule 8 will result in the
dismissal of this action for failure to comply with the Court’s Order.
DONE this 12th day of October 2022.
s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:22-cv-00366-KD-B Doc# 8 Filed 10/12/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>