On August 16, Carlos filed a document titled “Motion for Leave to File the Authorized Second Amended Complaint.” He explained this was in compliance with the June 18 order authorizing the amendment and that he was adding his wife and son as plaintiffs. It cautioned Carlos that he “need to look and see exactly what ha to prove under the ADA, and if it doesn’t fit, going to have a problem later.” Shortly after, the district court entered its order dismissing the complaint as a shotgun pleading with leave to file a second amended complaint on or before August 16.
for a disabled person.” The court explained it would permit Carlos to file a second amended complaint and warned Carlos that, based on the USCA11 Case: 22-14133 4 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: Opinion of the Court Page: 4 of 12 22-14133 caselaw cited by the defendant, his complaint sounded like medical malpractice, not an ADA claim. The court also asked Carlos how he knew he had difficulty getting Angie an appointment because of his disability, rather than the hospital being busy, and Carlos said the defendant’s staff treated his son “like a normal person,” rather than giving him an earlier appointment as “a reasonable accommodation. At a status conference in June 2019, the district court stated it would dismiss the first amended complaint as a shotgun filing because Carlos had reincorporated his prior allegations in each count. The defendant renewed its motion to dismiss, arguing the first amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim. Generally, Carlos was dissatisfied with the treatment Angie received during the October and November visits, and his complaint asserted counts for discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and RA, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. Carlos’s 26-page, 168-paragraph first amended complaint described three encounters with the defendant: (1) a phone call on May 3, 2016, to set up a doctor’s appointment, (2) an emergency room visit on Octoand (3) the scheduled appointment on November 4, 2016.
#Miami dade clerk of courts criminal case search pro#
BACKGROUND Carlos, as the sole plaintiff, filed a pro se complaint in 2018, and in response to the defendant’s first motion to dismiss, he filed his first amended complaint in April 2019 with the district court’s permission. For ease of reference, we refer to Carlos and Angie Alonso by their first names. After careful review, we affirm the dismissal. They appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their pro se second amended complaint as a shotgun pleading and alternatively for failure to state a claim. Over the course of their interactions, they allege the defendant discriminated against them based on Angie’s disability in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C § 12131-12134, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA), 29 U.S.C. Carlos and Morejón took Angie to the defendant-Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County doing business as Jackson Memorial Hospital-for medical care. PER CURIAM: Carlos Alonso and his wife, Fé Morejón, are the parents of Angie Alonso, an adult with mental and physical disabilities. 1:18-cv-24045-DPG _ Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C.
Jackson Memorial Hospital, USCA11 Case: 22-14133 2 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 12 22-14133 Defendant-Appellee. 22-14133 Non-Argument Calendar _ CARLOS ALONSO, individually, and as guardian for his son, Angie Alonso, Plainti -Appellant, FE MOREJON, individually, Plainti, versus THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, d.b.a. USCA11 Case: 22-14133 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: Page: 1 of 12 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit _ No.
0 kommentar(er)
