United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Jerome McCloud and Deborah 

McCloud, Plaintiffs, 

v.

Scottsdale Insurance Co., 

Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-22791-Civ-Scola

Order

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Co.’s 

(“Scottsdale”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) 

In a five-page complaint that leaves much unanswered, the Plaintiffs assert 

a breach of contract claim and a count for a declaratory judgment against 

Scottsdale, which they say inappropriately denied them coverage on their home 

insurance policy. (See ECF No. 1-1 at 5-9.) Scottsdale removed this case from

Florida state court on September 1, 2022 alleging diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No.

1.) It now moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. 

For starters, the Court can, and does, grant the motion to dismiss based on

the Plaintiffs’ failure to respond. See Local Rule 7.1(c) (“each party opposing a

motion shall file and serve an opposing memorandum of law no later than

fourteen (14) days after service of the motion. Failure to do so may be deemed

sufficient cause for granting the motion by default.”); see also, e.g., Bradshaw v.

Integon Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 19-24806-CIV, 2019 WL 6716364, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Fla.

Dec. 10, 2019) (Scola, J.) (“Bradshaw’s failure to respond to the complaint

constitutes an independent basis to dismiss the complaint.”). 

Seeing as Scottsdale filed its motion on September 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs’ 

response was due on September 22, 2022. The Plaintiffs have not requested an

extension of that deadline nor have they provided the Court with any explanation

for their failure to respond.

However, the Court also grants Scottsdale’s motion on its merits. Scottsdale 

says that the Plaintiffs’ complaint altogether fails to comport with Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) because it offers no factual content that would allow the 

Court to draw a reasonable inference that Scottsdale is liable for the alleged

misconduct. (Mot. 5.)

Although a pleading need only contain a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief under Rule 8(a)(2), a plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22791-RNS Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 2
must nevertheless articulate “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Scottsdale says that the “Plaintiffs do not identify, with specificity, the 

cause of the alleged loss to their Property . . . [or] the nature of the alleged loss or 

damage to their Property . . . [or] what provision of the subject Insurance Policy 

purportedly affords coverage for the alleged loss.” (Mot. 5-6.) As such, its 

argument goes, the “allegations set forth in [the] Plaintiffs’ Complaint are patently 

insufficient to state any material breach[.]” (Id.) The Court could not agree more. 

Because the Plaintiffs fail to articulate even what part(s) of the relevant policy 

is/are at issue, they fail to comport with Rule 8(a)(2) and thus fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted in respect of both their counts.

Accordingly, the Court grants Scottsdale’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5.) 

The case is dismissed without prejudice, and with leave to file a new civil 

action. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Any pending motions are denied 

as moot.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on September 28, 2022.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-22791-RNS Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 2