Noufal v. HD Supply Management, Inc.
| Esam Noufal |
| HD Supply Management, Inc. |
| 8:2026cv02727 |
| September 18, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| John L Badalamenti |
| Anthony E Porcelli |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| Americans with Disabilities Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 18, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
TEXT ORDER. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading. The Complaint "contain[s] multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint." (Doc. #1 at paras. 42, 46, 50); Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, Plaintiff's #1 Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have leave to file an amended complaint. Should Plaintiff do so, Plaintiff must file such within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. No additional claims may be raised in any amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) ("The court should freely give leave when justice so requires."); Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123, 1132 (11th Cir. 2019) ("A pro se plaintiff must be given at least one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the action with prejudice[.]"). Failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. Signed by Judge John L. Badalamenti on 9/18/2026. (CAR)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of a related action per Local Rule 1.07(c) by Esam Noufal. Related case(s): Yes (KCH) |
| Filing 3 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT under Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 3.03 by Esam Noufal. (KCH) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS issued as to HD Supply Management, Inc.. (KCH) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against HD Supply Management, Inc. with Jury Demand filed by Esam Noufal.Filing fee $405.00, receipt number TPA #74897. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits and #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(KCH) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/18/2026: #3 Complaint Form) (KCH). |
| NOTICE to Esam Noufal - A pro se litigant may consent to receive Notices of Electronic Filings by completing the consent form linked #here or by visiting the court's website at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/litigants-without-lawyers (copy of consent program information sheet provided in person). (KCH) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Noufal v. HD Supply Management, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Esam Noufal | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: HD Supply Management, Inc. | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
