ORDER

PAUL G. BYRON, District Judge.

On April 6, 2018, Defendants, McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"), Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., moved for dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. (Docs. 28, 29). Plaintiff's response was due on or before Friday, April 20, 2018. See Local Rule 3.01(b) (requiring that a party opposing a motion file a response within fourteen days after receiving service of the motion). Under Local Rule 3.01(b), such response must include a memorandum of legal authority not to exceed twenty pages in length. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Motions to Dismiss. In the absence of a response, the Court finds that the motions to dismiss are due to be granted as unopposed.

In repleading, Plaintiff's counsel would do well to condense and simplify the allegations. The Amended Complaint is a far cry from "simple, concise, and direct" as mandated by Rule 8(d)(1), or a "short and plain statement of the claim[s]" as required by Rule 8(a)(2). Rather the Amended Complaint is excessively long-winded, and contains needless repetition and irrelevant factual allegations that detract from Plaintiff's attempt to state a claim. Due to its prolixity and needless repetition, the Amended Complaint misses the mark of simplicity required by Rule 8. See Dismuke v. Fla. Bd. of Governors, No. 8:05-cv-340-T-17TBM, 2005 WL 1668895, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2005) (explaining that "the purpose of Rule 8 is to avoid situations wherein pleading is so verbose that the court cannot identify with clarity claims of pleader and adjudicate such claims understandingly on merits") (citation omitted); see also Marsar v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 8:13-cv-01244-T-27, 2013 WL 3199984, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 30, 2013); Hunt v. Hillsborough Cty., No. 8:07-cv-1168T-30TBM, 2008 WL 544851, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2008) (dismissing a seventy-two page complaint for failing to abide by Rule 8's requirement that the pleading contain "a short and plain statement").

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: