Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10183/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10183-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10183

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

CICHOWSKI FAMILY,

Plaintiff,

CHRISTINE V. CICHOWSKI, 

CVC,

KEVIN CICHOWSKI, 

to be known as KJ,

STANLEY CICHOWSKI, JR., 

SC,

CHRISTINE CICHOWSKI, 

CC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

USCA11 Case: 24-10183 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10183

CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, CVS HEALTH 

SOLUTIONS, LLC, CVS PHARMACY, INC., 

CVS RX SERVICE, INC., et al.,

Defendants,

KES, 

The Pharmacist, SK,

CVS PHARMACY, 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-00599-TJC-PDB

____________________

Before WILSON, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs-Appellants Kevin Cichowski, Christine V. 

Cichowski, Stanley Cichowski, and Christine Cichowski (collectively, the Cichowskis), proceeding pro se, appeal the district 

court’s grant of CVS Pharmacy Inc.’s (CVS) motion for judgment 

on the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The Cichowskis argue that 

USCA11 Case: 24-10183 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 2 of 7
24-10183 Opinion of the Court 3

the district court erred in finding that their complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to support a valid negligence claim against CVS.

After careful review, we affirm. 

I.

In our review of the district court’s order granting judgment 

on the pleadings, we must accept as true all material facts in the 

Cichowskis’ complaint. See Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 

1335 (11th Cir. 2014). According to the Cichowskis, these are the 

facts.1 On or about May 26, 2022, a CVS pharmaceutical technician, 

Kes, accepted a service of process assignment. Kes then followed 

and stalked the Cichowskis at night causing them psychological 

trauma. 

II.

We review de novo a district court’s order granting judgment on the pleadings. Perez, 774 F.3d at 1335. “Judgment on the 

pleadings is appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute 

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Id. (quotation marks omitted). “In determining whether a party is 

1 The Cichowskis proceed pro se and allege only a limited factual background 

in their Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The district court’s order provides 

additional context based on prior filings and a hearing before the district court.

The Cichowskis believed that a CVS pharmacist served or attempted to serve 

Stanley Cichowski in a debt collection case. They thought the connection between their pharmacist and the service of process in the collection case violated their privacy and First Amendment right to freedom of speech by chilling 

their desire to speak with a pharmacist. While this is helpful context, we base 

our decision solely on the information provided in the SAC.

USCA11 Case: 24-10183 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10183

entitled to judgment on the pleadings, we accept as true all material 

facts alleged in the non-moving party’s pleading, and we view 

those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”

Id.

Although we construe pro se pleadings liberally, we “cannot 

act as de facto counsel or rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading 

to sustain an action.” Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 911 (11th 

Cir. 2020). And we will generally not consider an issue raised for 

the first time on appeal, Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 

1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004), nor will we consider issues raised for 

the first time in a reply brief, Berry v. Crestwood Healthcare LP, 84 

F.4th 1300, 1313 (11th Cir. 2023). Additionally, “an amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint unless the 

amendment specifically refers to or adopts the earlier pleading.” 

Varnes v. Loc. 91, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass’n of U.S. and Canada, 674 

F.2d 1365, 1370 n.6 (11th Cir. 1982).

In reviewing an order of a district court sitting in diversity, 

we must apply the law of the state in which the district court sits, 

including that state’s common law. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 

U.S. 64, 78 (1938). Here, the district court sits in Florida, so we apply Florida law. See id. Under Florida law, a negligence claim has 

four elements: (1) “[t]he claimant must first demonstrate that the 

defendant owed a duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct, 

for the protection of others against unreasonable risks”; (2) “the 

claimant must establish that the defendant failed to conform to that 

USCA11 Case: 24-10183 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 4 of 7
24-10183 Opinion of the Court 5

duty”; (3) “there must be a reasonably close causal connection between the nonconforming conduct and the resulting injury to the 

claimant”; and (4) “the claimant must demonstrate some actual 

harm.” Williams v. Davis, 974 So. 2d 1052, 1056 (Fla. 2007) (quotation marks omitted and alterations adopted). 

An employer is vicariously liable for compensatory damages 

arising from an employee’s negligent acts committed within the 

scope of their employment, though an employer cannot be held 

vicariously liable for punitive damages unless the employer is also 

at fault. Mercury Motors Exp., Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545, 549 (Fla. 

1981). An employee acts within the scope of employment when his 

or her conduct “occurs substantially within authorized time and 

space limits, and it is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve 

the [employer].” McGhee v. Volusia Cnty., 679 So. 2d 729, 732 (Fla. 

1996). 

The Florida Supreme Court has defined the standard of care 

imposed on pharmacists as follows: a pharmacist who sells a prescription warrants that (1) “he will compound the drug prescribed;” (2) “he has used due and proper care in filling the prescription (failure of which might also give rise to an action in negligence);” (3) “the proper methods were used in the compounding 

process;” and (4) “the drug has not been infected with some adulterating foreign substance.” McLeod v. W.S. Merrell Co., 174 So. 2d 

736, 739 (Fla. 1965).

An employer may also be held liable for negligently hiring 

or negligently supervising its employees. Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 

USCA11 Case: 24-10183 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 24-10183

347, 361–62 (Fla. 2002). To make out a prima facie case of negligent 

hiring, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the employer had to

“make an appropriate investigation of the employee and failed to 

do so”; (2) “an appropriate investigation would have revealed the 

unsuitability of the employee for the particular duty”; and (3) “it 

was unreasonable for the employer to hire the employee in light of 

the information he knew or should have known.” Id. at 362. Negligent supervision, by contrast, “occurs after employment begins, 

where the employer knows or should know of an employee’s unfitness and fails to take further action such as investigating, discharge or reassignment.” Id. at 362 n.15 (quotation marks omitted).

III.

Here, because the Cichowskis’ SAC alleges that pharmaceutical technician, Sophanath Kes, stalked the Cichowskis at night—

that is, outside the “authorized time and space limits” of his employment at CVS—and because there are no allegations in the complaint suggesting that Kes’s actions were motivated by a purpose 

to serve CVS—Kes was not acting within the scope of his employment when he allegedly stalked the Cichowskis. See McGhee, 679 

So. 2d at 732. Thus, CVS would not be vicariously liable for Kes’s 

alleged actions. Nor are the allegations in the SAC sufficient to suggest that CVS negligently hired or supervised Kes, since “an appropriate investigation” into Kes at the time he was hired, or any time 

after, would not have suggested that Kes was unsuited to perform 

his duties as a pharmaceutical technician merely because he also 

worked as a process server. See Malicki, 814 So. 2d at 362.

USCA11 Case: 24-10183 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 6 of 7
24-10183 Opinion of the Court 7

Even if we consider factual allegations from the Cichowskis’ 

prior complaints, the Cichowskis have still failed to allege facts suggesting that CVS is liable to the Cichowskis for negligence. Even if 

Kes failed to inform the Cichowskis that he was working as a process server in a debt-collection case against Stanley Cichowski before filling and dispensing the Cichowskis’ medications, this would 

not breach any duty that pharmacists owe to their customers under 

McLeod. See 174 So. 2d at 739. Nor would CVS be liable to the 

Cichowskis on a theory of negligent hiring or negligent supervision 

of pharmacist Kes for the same reasons described above.

We need not address the Cichowskis’ arguments that the 

district court did not consider a document describing the scope of 

CVS’s duties, failed to mail them certain orders and documents, 

and engaged in ex parte communications with CVS at a hearing because these issues are raised for the first time on appeal and for the 

first time in a reply brief. See Access Now, Inc., 385 F.3d at 1331. CVS 

was entitled to a judgment on the pleadings; we, therefore, affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 24-10183 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 7 of 7