JUSTIN MAXNER
v.
AMERICAN CONTRACT SYSTEMS, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a toxic tort case arising from alleged ethylene oxide exposure near a sterilization facility in Fort Myers, Florida, the court granted defendant ACS's motion to dismiss for failure to comply with pleading requirements, finding the complaint was a shotgun pleading that improperly lumped together two defendants without specifying which was responsible for which conduct.
The court held that the complaint was indeed a shotgun pleading under Eleventh Circuit precedent because it asserted claims against multiple defendants without specifying which defendant was responsible for which acts or omissions. The complaint must be amended to remove LeeSar and identify only conduct attributable to ACS.
[1] A complaint is a shotgun pleading when it asserts multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which defendants are responsible for which acts or omissi…
[2] A court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it constitutes a shotgun pleading.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“assert[s] 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”
The Eleventh Circuit's definition of one category of shotgun pleadings that applies to this complaint
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Justin Maxner worked next to a sterilization facility owned and operated by American Contract Systems, Inc. (ACS) where he allegedly inhaled…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Joint Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
This toxic tort case arises from exposure to ethylene oxide (“EtO”) near a sterilization plant in Fort Myers, Florida. Defendant American Contract Systems, Inc. (“ACS”) owns and operates the facility. (Doc. 7 ¶ 6.) Plaintiff Justin Maxner “worked next to the subject facility” where he allegedly “inhaled substantial and dangerous amounts of EtO.” (Id. ¶¶ 4, 29.) Maxner brings claims for negligence (Count I), strict liability (Count II), and statutory strict liability (Count III). ACS now moves to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 46.)
ACS first argues that the complaint is a shotgun pleading because it “improperly lumps together two separate entities—ACS and LeeSar, Inc. ('LeeSar')-repeatedly and collectively referring to them as Defendants without identifying which Defendant is responsible for which act or omission.” (Doc. 15 at 2.) The Court agrees.
The Eleventh Circuit has identified four “rough types or categories of shotgun pleadings.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F. 3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015). Pertinent here, a complaint is a shotgun pleading where it "assert[s] 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." Id. at 1323. Maxner's complaint falls into this category. He treats the two named defendants as indivisible and does not specify who is responsible for which conduct. The Court has rejected Maxner's theory of joint liability (Doc. 44), so we cannot treat the defendants as a cohesive unit.
ACS's motion to dismiss is thus GRANTED, and Maxner is directed to file an amended complaint that removes Leesar (Doc. 44) and identifies only the conduct attributable to ACS within fourteen days. The Court will address ACS's remaining arguments if needed in response to the amended complaint.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 8, 2025.
Kyle C. Dudek United States District Judge