UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23114-BLOOM/Louis

HARVEY C. BROOKS, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended 

Complaint, ECF No. [42] (“Motion”), filed on April 6, 2021. Plaintiff filed a response in 

opposition, ECF No. [43] (“Response”), to which Defendant filed a reply, ECF No. [44] (“Reply”). 

The Court has carefully considered the Motion, all opposing and supporting submissions, the 

record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Motion is denied. 

The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the factual and procedural background of 

this case. ECF Nos. [35] & [40]. In the instant Motion, Defendant seeks dismissal of the Second 

Amended Complaint, ECF No. [41], on the sole basis that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the 

Court’s orders and instructions on how to file a complaint in conformity with the requirements of 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Specifically, on March 31, 2021, the Court entered an 

Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss because the Amended Complaint, among other 

factors, qualified as an impermissible shotgun pleading. ECF No. [40]. In the Order, the Court 

instructed Plaintiff “to file a ‘Second Amended Complaint’ that sets forth each of his claims for 

Case 1:20-cv-23114-BB Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2021 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 20-cv-23114-BLOOM/Louis

2

relief in separately numbered counts” and that “[e]ach count shall separately identify the statutory 

cause of action, the manner of the statutory violation, and the purported basis for the wrongdoing.” 

ECF No. [40] at 8; see also ECF No. [35] (dismissing Plaintiff’s initial complaint on the same 

basis). 

The Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint and finds that it is not subject to 

dismissal. While the pleading’s structure may not fully comply with this Court’s Orders, Plaintiff 

has sufficiently set forth his claims for relief against Defendant, and the basis for those claims.

Indeed, while Plaintiff could have pleaded his claims in a better fashion, “this is not a situation 

where a failure to more precisely parcel out and identify the facts relevant to each claim materially 

increased the burden of understanding the factual allegations underlying each count.” Weiland v. 

Palm Beach Ctny. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1324 (11th Cir. 2015). As plead, Defendant can 

certainly understand “what they were alleged to have done and why they were liable for doing it.” 

Id. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [42], is 

DENIED. Defendant shall file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint no later than May 

27, 2021. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 17, 2021.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-23114-BB Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2021 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 20-cv-23114-BLOOM/Louis

3

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Harvey C. Brooks, III

637 NW 99th Terrace

Coral Springs, FL 33071

Case 1:20-cv-23114-BB Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2021 Page 3 of 3