Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 29 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID 355

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP
ZIECHA NORWILLO, as surviving
spouse and as Personal Representative
of the Estate of FRANCIS NORWILLO,
and MICHAEL DOUGHERTY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PURPLE SHOVEL, LLC,
SKYBRIDGE TACTICAL, LLC
SKYBRIDGE RESOURCES, LLC,
REGULUS GLOBAL LLC, and
REGULUS GLOBAL INC.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
DEFENDANTS REGULUS GLOBAL LLC AND REGULUS GLOBAL INC.’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT [D.E. 2]
AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Defendants, Regulus Global LLC and Regulus Global Inc. (collectively, “Regulus”)1,
through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
Local Rule 3.01, hereby move to dismiss the Complaint [D.E. 2] filed by Plaintiffs, Ziecha
Norwillo (“Norwillo”) and Michael Dougherty (“Dougherty”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
On or about October 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a deficient Complaint against, inter alia,
Regulus in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County,

1

Regulus Global Inc. no longer exists, but to the extent there could be any claim(s) asserted by Plaintiffs against
Regulus Global Inc., undersigned counsel will represent the interests of Regulus Global, Inc., if any, should the
claim(s) asserted against it proceed.

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 29 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID 356

Florida that is based on mere supposition and conclusion rather than necessary and required
facts. Plaintiffs’ deficient Complaint was subsequently removed to this Honorable Court prior to
being served on Regulus. See Notice of Removal [D.E. 1]. Contrary to the extensive body federal
and state of case law setting forth pleading standards, Plaintiffs seek to assert wrongful death and
negligence claims based on Regulus somehow procuring what Plaintiffs refer to as “the rocketpropelled grenade” that allegedly killed Francis Norwillo (“Decedent”) and injured Dougherty,
and thus allegedly owing a “non-delegable duty” to Decedent and Dougherty, despite Plaintiffs
failing to allege any facts in support of such claims; particularly as to Regulus. Rather, Plaintiffs
idly chose to ignore the required “fair notice” pleading obligations set forth below by improperly
lumping all or some of the five (5) co-defendants together by using the amorphous term
“Defendants” to simply conclude, without any factual support, that unspecified “Defendants
procured the rocket-propelled grenade…for [Decedent] and…Dougherty to inspect” and “placed
[Decedent] and…Dougherty in grave danger[,]” thus creating a supposed duty to Decedent and
Dougherty. See Complaint, ¶¶ 17-20. Yet, Plaintiffs fail to factually allege the actions
purportedly taken by each defendant, including Regulus. Plaintiffs’ conclusions notwithstanding,
Regulus must be informed and is entitled to know the grounds in support of Plaintiffs’ claims;
specifically, what action or inaction Regulus is alleged to have taken to have created a supposed
“duty” owed to Decedent and Dougherty related to the alleged “procurement” of the noticeably
unidentified “grenade.”
Similarly, Norwillo seeks to assert a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress
based upon the supposed, but unalleged, actions of the group amorphous “Defendants” which
allegedly “misrepresented, hid, or tried to cover up” the circumstances surrounding the death of
Decedent. See Complaint, ¶ 21. However, Norwillo does not allege any facts in support of such a

2

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 29 Filed 02/10/17 Page 3 of 10 PageID 357

claim, let alone facts that establish any duty on behalf of Regulus to provide Norwillo with
information in Regulus’ possession, if any; a particularly troubling absence in light of the
incredibly high standard associated with a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to plead any viable claims and the Complaint should be
dismissed.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Rule 12(b)(6) Legal Standard
To adequately plead a claim for relief, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require, in
part, a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure further provide for
dismissal of a complaint that fails to comply with minimum pleading requirements or otherwise
“fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also
Bostick v. McGuire, No. 6:15-cv-1533-Orl-37GJK, 2016 WL 1170951, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25,
2016). Although facts alleged in a complaint are generally taken as true at the motion to dismiss
stage, this principle is inapplicable to “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). In
assessing a motion to dismiss, courts determine whether a complaint “contain[s] sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 622, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Such factual allegations
“must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Plaintiff bears the burden to articulate enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face. Id. at 570; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[L]abels and conclusions” or “formulaic recitations

3

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 29 Filed 02/10/17 Page 4 of 10 PageID 358

of a cause of action” are insufficient to sustain a complaint. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Fuller v.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 888 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1268 (M.D. Fla. 2012).
Iqbal counsels a two-pronged approach to apply the foregoing principles: (1) eliminate all
allegations in the complaint that are mere legal conclusions; and (2) where there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to
an entitlement to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Plaintiffs’ Complaint falls far short of
satisfying these requisite standards.
B. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim
1. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for wrongful death and negligence (Counts IVV & XI – XV)
Under Florida law, in order to state a claim for wrongful death claim or negligence, a
plaintiff must establish: (1) a legal duty owed to the decedent; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) that
the legal or proximate cause of death or injury was the breach; and (4) consequential damages.
Olson v. Barrett, No. 6:13-cv-1886-Orl-40KRS, 2015 WL 1277933, at * 5 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20,
2015). The question of whether a duty exists and is owed is intertwined with the concept of
foreseeability. Id. (citing Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So.2d 732, 735 (Fla. 1989) (“[W]here a
defendant’s conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk, the law generally will recognize a duty
placed upon defendant either to lessen the risk or see that sufficient precautions are taken to
protect others from the harm that the risk poses.”). However, a legal duty is not “established by
evidence of foreseeability alone[,]” but rather requires a showing that the “risk was created by
the alleged negligence of the defendant.” Aguila v. Hilton, Inc., 878 So.2d 392, 396-97 (Fla.
2004). A complaint is properly dismissed where a plaintiff fails to “state facts establishing…a
legal duty.” Peninsular Florida Dist. Counsil of Assemblies of God v. Pan American Inv. and
Development Corp., 450 So2d 1231, 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

4

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 29 Filed 02/10/17 Page 5 of 10 PageID 359

A duty may arise “from four general sources: (1) legislative enactments or administrative
regulations; (2) judicial interpretations of such enactments or regulations; (3) other judicial
precedent; and (4) a duty arising from the general facts of a case.” Williams v. Davis, 974 So.2d
1052, 1056 (Fla. 2007) (citing McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 503 n.2 (Fla.
1992). In the absence of a duty, there is no cause of action for negligence or wrongful death.
Jenkins v. W.L. Roberts, Inc., 851 So.2d 781, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (citing McCain, 593
So.2d at 500); see also Wallace v. Dean, 3 So.3d 1035, 1044 (Fla. 2009) (“the absence of a duty
of care between the defendant and the plaintiff results in a lack of liability[.]”)(emphasis in
original). Pursuant to Florida common law, “a person has no duty to control the conduct of
another or to warn those placed in danger by such conduct unless a special relationship exists
between the defendant and the persons whose behavior needs to be controlled or the foreseeable
victim of such conduct.” Twiss v. Kury, 25 F.3d 1551, 1555 (11th Cir. 1994). This special
relationship must include the right and ability to control such conduct. See Carney v. Gambel,
751 So.2d 653, 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Lott v. Goodkind, 867 So.2d 407, 408 (Fla. 3d DCA
2003).
Plaintiffs’ allegations must give “each defendant ‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim
and the ‘grounds’ on which the claim rests.” Scott v. Yellon, No. 2:13-cv-157-FtM-38DNF, 2013
WL 3802797, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2013) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3) (emphasis in
original); see also Lane v. Capital Acquisitions and Management Company, No. 04-60602 CIV,
2006 WL 4590705, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2006) (Motion to dismiss granted where complaint
“lump[s] all the defendant together in each claim and provid[es] no factual basis to distinguish
their conduct[.]”); Synergy Real Estate of SW Florida, Inc. v. Premier Property Management of

5

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 29 Filed 02/10/17 Page 6 of 10 PageID 360

SW Florida, LLC, No. 2:11-cv-707-FtM-29UAM, 2013 WL 5596795, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 11,
2013).
Plaintiffs’ Complaint neither sets forth legislative enactments or administrative
regulations, including judicial determinations of same, or judicial precedent to support any
supposed duty Plaintiffs seek to create and improperly impose on Regulus. Thus, the only other
basis available to Plaintiffs to attempt to impose a duty must be by virtue of the facts of the case;
none of which have been alleged as to Regulus. Williams v. Davis, 974 So.2d at 1056. Indeed,
Plaintiffs fail to present any sufficient facts in the case. Specifically, Plaintiffs fail to allege any
facts establishing a duty owed by Regulus to either Decedent or Dougherty. Rather, Plaintiffs
simply use the improper lumping of Defendants to conclude all or some of the “Defendants”
procured the “grenade” at issue, see Complaint, ¶ 17, and proceed to incorporate such factually
unsupported conclusion into each individual count asserted against each defendant, including
Regulus.2 See Complaint, ¶¶ 23, 30, 37, 44, 51. However, Plaintiffs fail to allege the facts as to
Regulus’ supposed involvement in such “procurement,” which failure not only deprives Regulus
of fair notice as to the grounds on which the claim rests, but also ignores Florida law that holds a
person has no duty to control the conduct of another or to warn those placed in danger by such
conduct unless a special relationship exists. By way of example, Regulus is left to speculate as to
which defendant placed the alleged “grenade” at issue into Decedent’s possession and how such
defendant obtained such “grenade” and so on and so forth. Simply put, Plaintiffs’ mechanical
recitation of the elements of a claim of negligence and wrongful death that merely lumps all or
some of the five (5) defendants together as the amorphous “Defendants,” and incorporating such
allegations into each individual count asserted against Regulus, is woefully insufficient as a

2

Not coincidentally, each count against each named defendant is verbatim identical with the sole exception of
reference to the respectively named defendant.

6

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 29 Filed 02/10/17 Page 7 of 10 PageID 361

matter of law because it deprives Regulus of notice as to what is alleged to be Regulus’ conduct
in the supposed “procurement” process that seeks to provide the backbone of Plaintiffs naked
assertion of duty. See Complaint, ¶¶ 17, 44, 51, 88, 93, 98, 103, 108.
Accordingly, Counts IV-V and XIV-XV of Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed.
2. Plaintiff Norwillo fails to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotion
distress claims (Counts XIV & XV)
Under Florida law, in order to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, a plaintiff must establish: (1) deliberate or reckless infliction of mental
suffering by defendant; (2) by outrageous conduct; (3) which conduct of the defendant must have
caused the suffering; and (4) the suffering must have been severe. Howry v. Nisus, Inc., 910
F.Supp. 576, 580 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (citing Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. McCarson, 467
So.2d 277, 278 (Fla. 1985)); see also Hart v. U.S., 894 F.2d 1539, 1548 (11th Cir. 1990) (The
elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are “(1) deliberate or reckless infliction of
mental suffering; (2) by outrageous conduct; (3) which conduct must have caused the suffering;
and (4) the suffering must have been severe.”). Conduct is deemed intentional “[w]here the actor
knows that [severe] distress is certain, or substantially certain to result from his conduct.” Hart,
894 F.2d at 1548 (quoting Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sheehan, 373 So.2d 956, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA
1979)). Further, the conduct must be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to
go beyond all possible bounds of decency.” Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 467 So.2d at 279;
see also Geidel v. City of Bradenton Beach, 56 F.Supp.2d 1359, 1368 (“[O]utrageous conduct”
requires allegations demonstrating the conduct was so “outrageous in character, and so extreme
in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and further that it would be regarded
as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized economy.”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
Novotny, 657 So.2d 1210, 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (citing Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 467

7

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 29 Filed 02/10/17 Page 8 of 10 PageID 362

So.2d at 279) (To state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, “the recitation of
facts must arouse resentment in an average member of the community….[T]he subjective
response of the person who is the target of the actor’s conduct does not control the question of
whether the tort occurred.”). The standard for alleging such “outrageous conduct” is “incredibly
high.” Geidel, 56 F.Supp.2d at 1368.
Similar to the shortcomings argued in Section II(B)(1), supra, Plaintiff Norwillo fails to
allege sufficient facts in support of the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Here,
Plaintiff Norwillo does not allege the substance of the purported misrepresentations or the
supposed action (or inaction) taken by Regulus in attempting to purportedly “hid[e] or…cover up
the facts” surrounding Decedent’s death; a particularly troublesome omission in light of the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). See Byrnes v. Small, 142 F.Supp.3d 1262,
1266-71 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (In the context of a fraud claim, recognizing misrepresentations must
be pled with particularity). Moreover, Plaintiff fails to allege the purported “facts” she sought to
obtain from Regulus despite the fact that Plaintiff Dougherty who is represented by the same
counsel in this action as Norwillo, allegedly “used his phone to video record” Decedent’s death.
See Complaint, ¶ 14. Similarly, Plaintiff does not even allege the facts that purportedly gave rise
to any obligation on the part of Regulus to communicate anything to Plaintiff Norwillo,
including the facts surrounding the Decedent’s death; particularly as Regulus is not alleged to
have any relationship with Plaintiffs or Decedent.
In short, Plaintiff has not asserted any facts revealing that Regulus behaved in an
impermissible way or did anything other than protecting its legal rights. See State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 657 So.2d at 1212 (“[T]he tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is not
created by a person who does no more than pursue his legal rights in a permissible way, even if

8

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 29 Filed 02/10/17 Page 9 of 10 PageID 363

he knows his conduct will cause emotional distress to the plaintiff.”). Instead, Plaintiff, again,
simply lumps all or some of the five (5) amorphous “Defendants” together to conclude, without
providing any facts in support thereof, and incorporates into each individual count asserted
against each defendant, including Regulus, 3 see Complaint, ¶¶ 58, 64, 70, 76, 82, “Defendants
intentionally and knowingly misrepresented, hid, or tried to cover up the facts surrounding
[Decedent’s] death from his surviving spouse, [Plaintiff] Norwillo.” Complaint, ¶ 21. Such
improper lumping fails to provide Regulus with the requisite fair notice of the grounds upon
which the claims rest. See Scott, 2013 WL 3802797, at *1. While Regulus is sympathetic to any
loss of life, including Decedent’s, the Complaint simply does not set forth a single fact sufficient
to meet the “incredibly high standard” of alleging “outrageous conduct.”
Accordingly, Counts XIV and XV of Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed.
C. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should dismiss the claims asserted in Plaintiffs’
Complaint against Regulus for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and
grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and reasonable in favor of Regulus.
Date: February 11, 2017

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Lawren A. Zann
Beth-Ann E. Krimsky
Fla. Bar No. 968412
beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com
Lawren Zann
Fla. Bar No. 42997
lawren.zann@gmlaw.com
GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A.
200 East Broward Blvd, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Tel: (954) 527-2427
Fax: (954) 333-4027

3

See n. 2, supra.

9

 Case 8:16-cv-03471-MSS-MAP Document 29 Filed 02/10/17 Page 10 of 10 PageID 364

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 11, 2017, we electronically filed the foregoing
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law via
transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
/s/ Lawren A. Zann
Lawren A. Zann

10