SWEENEY v. ACRO CONSTRUCTION LLC et al

Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER K. SWEENEY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-117-TKW-MJF
ACRO CONSTRUCTION LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Despite the undersigned affording Plaintiff two opportunities to
correct 	pleading 	deficiencies, 	Plaintiff 	has 	filed 	several 	amended
complaints that are still so-called “shotgun” pleadings that violate the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For this reason, Defendants have
moved to dismiss the operative pleading—Plaintiff’s second amended
complaint. Docs. 42, 62, 85. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the
undersigned’s order to amend his complaint, and Plaintiff failed to
comply 	with 	Rule 	8(a) 	and 	Rule 	10 	of 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil
Procedure, 	the 	District 	Court 	should 	grant 	Defendants’ 	motions 	to
dismiss this civil action.
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 13

Page 2 of 13
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in a Florida state court
asserting claims under the FLSA. Doc. 1-2 at 7–38. Defendants removed
this civil action to federal court. Doc. 1.
A. 	The Undersigned Struck Plaintiff’s Initial Complaint
On August 20, 2025, the undersigned struck Plaintiff’s complaint
because it violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and was a so-
called shotgun pleading. Doc. 20. The undersigned instructed Plaintiff to
separate, number, and label each claim, identify each defendant to which
each claim applies, and to include only those facts relevant to the
particular claim Plaintiff asserted.
B. 	Plaintiff Filed his First Amended Complaint
On September 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint.
Doc. 25. Defendants Acro and Cooper moved to dismiss because Plaintiff’s
first amended complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading and
because Plaintiff violated the undersigned’s order to amend his complaint
to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 31.
C. 	Plaintiff Filed his Second Amended Complaint
On September 19, 2025—which was within twenty-one days of
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 13

Page 3 of 13
service of Acro and Cooper’s initial motion to dismiss this action—
Plaintiff 	filed 	his 	second 	amended 	complaint. 	Doc. 	34. 	This 	is 	the
operative complaint.
Plaintiff names ten Defendants. Instead of referring to the ten
Defendants by their respective names throughout the second amended
complaint, Plaintiff refers to each Defendant by an assigned letter. For
example, Plaintiff refers to Acro Construction as “A,” and he designates
“Alan Cooper” as “B.”
Plaintiff is inconsistent in stating the types and number of claims
he asserts. For example, in bold capitalized text, Plaintiff purports to
asset only three “CLAIMS”:
• 	CLAIM 1 – UNPAID WAGES;
• 	CLAIM 	2 	– 	WRONGFUL 	TERMINATION 	AND
RETALIATION; and
• 	CLAIM 3 – LIBEL, SLANDER AND DEFAMATION.
Doc. 34 at 17, 18, 19. But in each of the “three” CLAIMS, Plaintiff asserts
more than one claim.
Furthermore, 	at 	various 	points 	through 	his 	second 	amended
complaint, Plaintiff purports to assert claims for:
• 	violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act;
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 13

Page 4 of 13
• 	violations of “State and Federal Minimum Wage and Labor Laws”;
• 	“Retaliation for exposing false claims on application for payment
and labor kickbacks on Federal Government Contracts”;
• 	spoliation;
• 	unjust enrichment; and
• 	the False Claims Act.
In Plaintiff’s “STATEMENT OF FACTS” section—which spans
thirteen pages—Plaintiff includes forty-nine paragraphs that contain
general allegations. Some of these allegations, however, appear to have
no bearing on any of the claims that Plaintiff asserts in his second
amended complaint.
In addition to impermissibly combining multiple claims in each
count, Plaintiff fails to identify which facts support each claim, fails to
ascribe particular actions to particular Defendants, and fails to indicate
which Defendants are liable under the multiple claims asserted in each
count.
DISCUSSION
A civil complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 13

Page 5 of 13
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Furthermore, “each claim founded on a
separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count
or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The purpose of these rules is “to require
the 	pleader to 	present 	his 	claims discretely 	and 	succinctly” 	so 	the
opposing party and the court can discern the nature of the plaintiff’s
claims. 	Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021)
(quoting Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320
(11th Cir. 2015)). “A so-called ‘shotgun pleading’ is a complaint that
violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or 10(b), or both.” Toth
v. Antonacci, 788 F. App’x 688, 690 (11th Cir. 2019).
“A district court has the ‘inherent authority to control its docket and
ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits,’ which includes the ability to
dismiss a complaint on shotgun pleading grounds.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v.
Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Weiland, 792
F.3d at 1320). A district court that receives a shotgun pleading must sua
sponte give a plaintiff “one chance to remedy such deficiencies.” Id. But
once a pro se litigant has been given that opportunity to remedy the
deficiencies and squanders the opportunity by filing another shotgun
pleading, the district court has the authority to dismiss the complaint on
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 13

Page 6 of 13
shotgun pleading grounds. Id. at 1295; Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075,
1133 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff’s Off.,
845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (“Federal courts possess an inherent
power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order.”)
(citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint violates the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and is a so-called “shotgun pleading” in three respects.
A. 	Plaintiff’s 	Second 	Amended 	Complaint 	is 	Replete 	with
Vague, Conclusory, and Immaterial Facts
First, 	Plaintiff’s 	second 	amended 	complaint 	is 	“replete 	with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322; Cramer v. Florida,
117 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11th Cir. 1997) (concluding that a complaint was a
“shotgun pleading” when it was “so disorganized and ambiguous that it
is almost impossible to discern precisely what it is that these appellants
are claiming.”); Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1359
n.9 (11th Cir.1997) (finding a shotgun pleading where “a reader of the
complaint must speculate as to which factual allegations pertain to which
count”).
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 13

Page 7 of 13
Although Plaintiff’s second amended complaint contains multiple
vague and conclusory statements, the undersigned will focus—as an
example—on 	the 	“facts” 	Plaintiff 	asserts 	in 	“CLAIM 	3 	– 	LIBEL,
SLANDER AND DEFAMATION,” purportedly in violation of Florida
Statutes § 770.1 In Claim 3, Plaintiff relies on paragraphs 51, 56 through
60, 	and 	64 	to 	support 	his claim, 	but 	these 	paragraphs 	are 	vague,
conclusory, and in many instances completely irrelevant. For example, in
paragraph 51, Plaintiff alleges:
51. 	Beginning in Sep 2024, continuing to Sep 2025, the
Plaintiff has noticed B and J has viewed his LinkedIn profile,
in conjunction with times either G’s Facebook Account or the
Facebook 	account 	of 	Elizabeth 	Chastain’s 	(deceased) 	has
shown as an acquaintance of the Plaintiff, which likely used
by J, as the opening of the Facebook Account coordinates with
J’s failure to register an internet identifier as a registered sex
offender charges timing. G is known to the Plaintiff as a
hidden figure whenever A or C gets involved in legal matters,
as a person who manipulates. G is the son of A.
It is unclear to the undersigned—and likely to Defendants—how these
vague and convoluted allegations relate to Plaintiff’s claims of libel,
slander, and defamation.
1 Fla. Stat. 770.03 and 770.04 are titled “Civil Liability of Broadcasting
Stations” 	and 	“Civil 	Liability 	of 	Radio 	or 	television 	broadcasting
stations.” Plaintiff does not allege, however, that that Defendants are
broadcasters.
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 7 of 13

Page 8 of 13
Similarly, in paragraphs 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60, Plaintiff repeatedly
states that there are “falsified facts” in a “falsified termination” letter,
but Plaintiff does not identify precisely what “facts” were false and how
they were defamatory. Doc. 34 ¶¶ 56, 58.
Furthermore, 	Plaintiff 	states 	that 	“A” 	or 	an 	employee 	of 	“A”
defamed him and “G” defamed him. 	Id. ¶¶ 75, 60. Yet again, Plaintiff
fails to identify the allegedly defamatory statement(s). Merely indicating
that he was defamed is conclusory and vague.
Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations make it impossible for
the District Court and Defendants to determine what facts—if any—
support Plaintiff’s claims.
B. 	Plaintiff Fails to Separate Each Claim or Cause of Action
into its Own Count
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint also violates the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff did not separate “into a
different count each cause of action or claim for relief.” Weiland, 792 F.3d
at 1323. Plaintiff labeled his first claim “CLAIM 1 – UNPAID WAGES.”
Doc. 34 ¶ 66. Plaintiff then appears to assert four distinct claims: (1) a
failure to pay an overtime premium in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard 	Act 	(FLSA); 	(2) 	a 	failure 	to 	pay 	the 	federally-mandated
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 8 of 13

Page 9 of 13
minimum wage in violation of the FLSA; (3) a failure to pay the Florida-
mandated minimum wage in violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act;
and (4) “unjust enrichment,” in violation of Florida law for a failure to
pay reimbursable expenses.
Similarly, under CLAIM 2 – WRONGFUL TERMINATION AND
RETALIATION, 	Plaintiff 	attempts 	to 	assert 	at 	least 	two 	entirely
different causes of actions: a retaliatory termination claim under the
FLSA 	and 	a 	retaliatory 	termination 	claim 	under 	the 	Florida
Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.101. The undersigned specifically
advised Plaintiff that Rule 10 requires Plaintiff to “separate each claim.”
Doc. 20 at 2, 3. Plaintiff elected to not do so. For this reason, too, the
second amended complaint is a shotgun pleading and must be dismissed.
C. 	Plaintiff Fails to Identify the Specific Defendants Who are
Responsible for Various Acts or Omissions
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint also “asserts 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, 792 F.3d at 1323.
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 9 of 13

Page 10 of 13
As noted above, “CLAIM 1” and “CLAIM 2” actually entail several
claims combined under one heading. Plaintiff does not separate these
multiple claims into one count for each claim.
As 	for 	identifying 	which 	claims 	are 	being 	asserted 	against
particular Defendants, Plaintiff asserts the following:
CLAIM 1: “Defendants A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J are liable to
their proportion of the damages claim to be determined by the Court or
Jury . . . .” Doc. 34 at 18.
CLAIM 2: “Defendants A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and J are liable to these
acts or omissions to cause harm to the Plaintiff.” Id. at 18.
CLAIM 3: “All Defendants are liable for these acts or omissions to
cause harm to the Plaintiff.” Id. at 19.
But, as noted above, in each of Plaintiff’s three “CLAIMS,” Plaintiff
asserts multiple causes of action under federal and state law. It is
difficult to determine which facts alleged in relevant paragraphs of the
“STATEMENT OF FACTS” section of the second amended complaint
pertain to each “CLAIM.”
Likewise, it is impossible to determine which facts alleged in the
relevant 	paragraphs 	of 	“STATEMENT 	OF 	FACTS” 	section 	of 	the
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 10 of 13

Page 11 of 13
second 	amended 	complaint 	pertain 	to 	each 	Defendant 	named 	in 	a
particular 	CLAIM. 	The 	District 	Court 	is 	left 	to 	guess 	what 	each
Defendant did or did not do that would make each Defendant liable for
the 	multiple 	claims 	Plaintiff 	asserts. 	Courts—not 	to 	mention
defendants—should not be required to resort to guesses to ascertain a
plaintiff’s claims. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
D. 	Dismissal of this Civil Action is Appropriate
The 	undersigned 	provided 	Plaintiff 	the 	opportunity 	to 	file 	an
amended complaint that complies with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 20. Plaintiff failed to comply with that
order and instead filed another impermissible “shotgun pleading.” Doc.
25. Plaintiff then filed another, namely the operative second amended
complaint. Doc. 34.
Plaintiff also has filed a proposed third amended complaint. Doc.
87-1. But Plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint also is a shotgun
pleading.
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the undersigned’s order to
amend his first amended complaint to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and because Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 11 of 13

Page 12 of 13
to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the District Court should grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss and
dismiss this civil action.
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
recommends that the District Court:
1. 	GRANT Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Docs. 42, 62, 85;
2. 	DISMISS this action with prejudice because Plaintiff failed
to comply with a court order and his complaint is a so-called “shotgun
pleading”; and
3. 	DIRECT 	the clerk of the court to terminate all pending
motions and close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida this 20th day of February 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 12 of 13

Page 13 of 13
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only and does not control. An objecting
party must serve a copy of the objections on all other
parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate
judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a
report 	and 	recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to
challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th
Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:25-cv-00117-TKW-MJF Document 152 Filed 02/20/26 Page 13 of 13