Patrick J. Mika v. Rollins College

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: 6:25-cv-1110-JSS-RMN

Summary

This is a March 11, 2026 district-court order in which the Middle District of Florida granted Rollins College's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint as a shotgun pleading and for failure to state plausible claims. The dismissal was without prejudice and the pro se plaintiff was permitted to file a second amended complaint by April 10, 2026.

Litigation Status

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff (pro se) filed an amended complaint; Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the court found multiple pleading defects (including shotgun pleading and lack of plausible factual allegations) and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice but granted leave to amend by April 10, 2026.

Reported Holding

The court granted Defendant Rollins College's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding the amended complaint constituted a shotgun pleading and failed to state plausible claims on multiple counts. The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint by April 10, 2026, subject to the limitations described in the order.

What the Court Decided

The court granted the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 13), dismissed the amended complaint (Dkt. 11) without prejudice, and allowed Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint by April 10, 2026, with instructions to cure shotgun pleading and pleading deficiencies.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not rule on the merits of Plaintiff's underlying substantive claims (Title IX, Rehabilitation Act, ADA, wiretap and state privacy claims, contract/tort claims) because dismissal was procedural for pleading deficiencies; the order did not resolve factual disputes or adjudicate the substantive liability of the defendant.

Significance

Generally viewed as defense-favorable. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.

What This Page Does and Does Not Say

This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.

Technologies at Issue

• audio recording

Statutes Invoked

• 20 U.S.C. § 1681; 29 U.S.C. § 794; 42 U.S.C. § 12101; 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511, 2520; Fla. Stat. §§ 934.03, 934.10

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• Title IX (20 U.S.C. § 1681)
• Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794)
• Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)
• Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2511, 2520)
• Florida Security of Communications Act (Fla. Stat. §§ 934.03, 934.10)
• state invasion of privacy claim
• breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
• negligence
• intentional infliction of emotional distress
• conspiracy
• due process (U.S. Const. XIV Amendment and Fla. Const. art. I, § 9)
• breach of duties of fairness/honesty

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

Because this matter is pending, anything reported here is procedural — allegations and interim rulings, not final determinations.

Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.

Related Intelligence

Sources

• ORDER (M.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2026) - Patrick J. Mika v. Rollins College, Case No. 6:25-cv-1110-JSS-RMN — United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division) · Tier C (Professional analysis) · 2026-03-11

About This Page

Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.

How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.

Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.

Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.