BETH BLOOM, District Judge.
The Complaint asserts one count against Defendant for negligence. Plaintiff alleges that on or about March 31, 2014, he was on Defendant's premises when he "slipped and fell on a wet slippery substance on the floor and or over debris located on the floor, and injured himself. Plaintiff's injuries were due to Defendant's negligence in maintaining the premises so as to allow spillage and or debris to accumulate on the floor for long periods of time, and by failing to regularly inspect the premises for such spillage and or debris and to clean same from the floor." Compl. at 3-4. This reflects the entirety Lowry's allegations. Defendant now seeks to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules requires a pleading to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations," it must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)'s pleading standard "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation"). In the same vein, a complaint may not rest on "`naked assertion[s]' devoid of `further factual enhancement.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (alteration in original)). These elements are required to survive a motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requests dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
When reviewing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a court, as a general rule, must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true and evaluate all plausible inferences derived from those facts in favor of the plaintiff. See Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. S. Everglades Restoration Alliance, 304 F.3d 1076, 1084 (11th Cir. 2002); AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Infinity Fin. Grp., LLC, 608 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2009) ("On a motion to dismiss, the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all facts alleged by the non-moving party are accepted as true."). Accordingly, a court considering a Rule 12(b) motion is generally limited to the facts contained in the complaint and attached exhibits, including documents referred to in the complaint that are central to the claim. See Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 959 (11th Cir. 2009). However, although a court is required to accept all of the allegations contained in the complaint and exhibits attached to the pleadings as true, this tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Thaeter v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 449 F.3d 1342, 1352 (11th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court was clear that courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. As an alternative to dismissal, Rule 12(e) permits a party to move for a "more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Through this lens, the Court addresses the instant Motion.
Defendant essentially argues that the Complaint as drafted is inadequate, and the Court must agree. Plaintiff's mere two-and-a-half-page Complaint attempts to recite the elements of common law negligence without any requisite factual enhancement. A negligence claim requires a plaintiff to show that (1) defendant owes plaintiff a duty, (2) defendant breached the duty, (3) defendant's breach injured plaintiff, and "(4) [plaintiff's] damage [was] caused by the injury to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's breach of duty." Resnick v. AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So.3d 1087, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to properly maintain the premises and, as a direct result, plaintiff was injured. Beyond this vague narrative, the Court has no knowledge from the Complaint as to what actually happened on the date in question, March 31, 2014. Plaintiff's use of generalities — "a wet slippery substance and or over debris" — as well as his use of "and or," further obfuscates the facts supporting Plaintiff's request for relief. Compl. at 3-4. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to allege what type(s) of duty was owed by Defendant to him as a customer in Defendant's store.
Accordingly, it is hereby