United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Maria Alejandra Thrash Graham, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. and Reef Tours, 

Ltd., and XYZ Corporations, 

Defendants 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 20-22826-Civ-Scola 

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss 

This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant NCL (Bahamas) 

Ltd.’s (“NCL”) motion to dismiss the Plaintiff Alejandra Thrash Graham’s 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) NCL moves to dismiss the amended 

complaint as an impermissible shot gun pleading and for failure to state a 

claim of negligence. (ECF No. 15.) The Plaintiff opposes the motion (ECF No. 16) 

and NCL filed a reply. (ECF No. 19.) For the reasons set forth below, NCL’s 

motion is granted. (ECF No. 15.) 

1. Background

On July 8, 2019, Alejandra and Daniel Graham, husband and wife, 

commenced a voyage to the Bahamas on NCL vessel Norwegian Sky. (ECF No. 

13 ¶ 47.) The next day, the Grahams departed from the vessel for an NCLadvertised snorkel excursion led by Defendant Reef Tours Ltd. (Id. ¶ 50.) While 

on the excursion, Mr. Graham reported to Reef Tours personnel that he was 

experiencing pain in his arm, difficulty breathing, and light-headedness. (Id. ¶ 

74.) Instead of returning to shore or performing emergency services, Reef Tours 

personnel waited one hour for another vessel to transfer the Grahams back to 

shore. (Id. ¶ 85.) By that time, Mr. Graham was unresponsive. (Id.) Upon 

arrival to shore, Reef Tours personnel failed to perform CPR or use a 

defibrillator. (Id. ¶¶ 86, 87.) A few minutes later, paramedics arrived at the 

scene and utilized a defibrillator for ten to fifteen minutes. (Id. ¶ 88.) Mr. 

Graham did not regain consciousness and was transferred to the hospital by 

ambulance where he was pronounced dead. (Id. ¶ 89.) 

In the four-count amended complaint, the Plaintiff, individually and on 

behalf of Mr. Graham’s estate, alleges counts of negligence against NCL and 

Reef Tours, vicarious liability against NCL for Reef Tours’ misconduct, and one 

Case 1:20-cv-22826-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2021 Page 1 of 4
count for damages resulting from the Defendants’ joint venture. (ECF No. 13.) 

NCL moved to dismiss the amended complaint arguing that it is a 

shotgun pleading because it lumps several claims of negligence into their 

counts against NCL. (ECF No. 15.) Upon review of the amended complaint, the 

Court finds that it is an impermissible shotgun pleading and must be 

dismissed. 

2. Analysis 

Courts in the Eleventh Circuit have little tolerance for shotgun 

pleadings.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294–95 (11th Cir. 

2018). They violate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b), “waste 

scarce judicial resources, inexorably broaden the scope of discovery, wreak 

havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine the public’s respect for the 

courts.” Id. (quotations and alterations omitted). When presented with a 

shotgun pleading, a district court “should strike the pleading and instruct 

counsel to replead the case—if counsel could in good faith make the 

representations required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).” Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 

898 F.3d 1348, 1357–58 (11th Cir. 2018) (“This is so even when the other party 

does not move to strike the pleading.”). When shotgun pleadings “are allowed to 

survive past the pleadings stage, ‘all is lost—extended and largely aimless 

discovery will commence, and the trial court will soon be drowned in an 

uncharted sea of depositions, interrogatories, and affidavits.’” Barmapov v. 

Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2021) (Tjoflat, J., concurring) 

(quoting Johnson Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 192 F.3d 1290, 

1333 (11th Cir. 1998)). Faced with a shotgun pleading, district courts should 

“immediately order a repleader and instruct the party to plead its case in 

accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b).” Id. at 1329 

(emphasis in original).

The Eleventh Circuit has identified four rough types of shotgun 

pleadings: 1) “the most common type—by a long shot—is a complaint 

containing multiple counts where 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) a complaint 

that commits the “venial sin” of being replete with conclusory, vague, and 

immaterial facts; 3) a pleading that fails to separate into a different count each 

cause of action; and 4) where a plaintiff asserts multiple claims against 

multiple defendants but fails to specify which defendants the respective claims 

are brought against. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 

1321-23 (11th Cir. 2015).

Case 1:20-cv-22826-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2021 Page 2 of 4
The amended complaint is guilty of several of these errors. For example, 

despite the facts of this case being straightforward, the amended complaint 

consists of 132 factual allegations that are conclusory or worse, unnecessarily 

duplicative of each other in several parts of the complaint. The amended 

complaint explains multiple times the proposed agency relationship between 

the Defendants and the ways NCL sponsored the excursion and then adopts all 

of these unnecessary facts into each count, making it harder to discern which 

allegations pertain to each count or can be attributed to each Defendant. 

Additionally, the amended complaint lumps multiple claims into single causes 

of action. In count one, the Plaintiff alleges that NCL was negligent because it 

did not practice reasonable care despite knowing about eleven different 

dangerous conditions, some of which are not even dangerous conditions but 

rather failures by either Defendant to implement certain policies. This 

deficiency plagues the remaining counts. See Garcia v. Carnival Corp., 838 F. 

Supp. 2d 1334, 1337, n.2 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (Moore, J.) (dismissing maritime 

negligence claim that “epitomizes a form of ‘shotgun’ pleading,” where the 

plaintiff alleged that the defendant owed a duty of “reasonable care under the 

circumstances,” and then “proceed[ed] to allege at least twenty-one ways in 

which [the d]efendant breached this duty”); Doe v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2016 

WL 6330587, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016) (Ungaro, J.) (holding that Plaintiff's 

“boilerplate allegations” of breach of duty failed to state a claim for negligent 

hiring and retention, training and supervision under maritime law, and 

ordering Plaintiff to “allege each of these three claims in separate Counts” in an 

amended complaint). 

For these reasons, the amended complaint constitutes a shotgun 

pleading and must be dismissed. Relatedly, because it is unclear which factual 

allegations pertain to each count or exactly what misconduct by each 

Defendant gives rise to each count, the Court will not reach NCL’s remaining 

arguments for failure to state a claim. 

3. Conclusion

For these reasons, NCL’s motion to dismiss is granted (ECF No. 15.) The 

Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint by May 24, 2021, provided it 

complies with this order, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10(b), and 

the Iqbal/Twombly standard. Specifically, the Plaintiff must assert each theory 

of liability as a separate cause of action, being careful not to include redundant 

claims in her amended pleading. 

The Court notes that the Plaintiff has failed to provide proof of service to 

Defendant Reef Tours nor has she moved for an extension of time to serve that 

Case 1:20-cv-22826-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2021 Page 3 of 4
Defendant. A plaintiff is responsible for serving the defendant with a summons 

and the complaint within ninety days of filing the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(c)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In this case, service was required by October 9, 

2020. In the joint status report filed on March 22, 2021, the Plaintiff indicated 

that she had been unable to serve Reef Tours because it was located outside of 

the United States. (ECF No. 22.) However, the Plaintiff did not request an 

extension to provide service or provide any plan to effectuate service. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1) (“Unless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the 

court.”). “If the plaintiff fails to properly serve the defendant within [ninety] 

days, ‘the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the 

plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice . . . or direct that service be 

effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause 

for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate 

period.’” Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th 

Cir. 2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff is notified, in keeping with Rule 4(m), that the 

Court will dismiss this case without prejudice against Reef Tours unless the 

Plaintiff can establish, no later than May 21, 2021, that the Reef Tours was 

timely served or that good cause exists for the failure to timely serve the 

Defendant.

Done and Ordered in Miami, Florida, on May 17, 2021.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22826-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2021 Page 4 of 4