United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
DALTONI JR, United States District Judge
instant action, Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint. (Doc. 4 (“Motion”).) Defendant asserts
that the Complaint: (1) is an impermissible shotgun pleading;
(2) fails to allege a plausible claim for relief; and (3)
does not satisfy the heightened pleading standards of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) as applicable (Id. at
2), and Plaintiff opposed (Doc. 13). As explained below, the
Court finds that the Complaint is due to dismissed as a
and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth
minimum requirements for complaints filed in this Court. At a
minimum, such filings must: (1) include “short and
plain” statements of the pleader's claims set forth
in “numbered paragraphs each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances;” and (2)
provide more than mere labels, legal conclusions, or
formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 8(d), 10(b); see also Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Local Rules
1.05, 1.06. When a plaintiff fails to follow Rules 8 and 10,
the result is an impermissible shotgun pleading. See
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792
F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015); Magluta v.
Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).
“most common type” of shotgun pleading “is
a complaint containing multiple counts where each count
adopts the allegation of all preceding counts.”
Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321. Shotgun pleadings also
may “begin with a long list of general
allegations” that are “incorporated by reference
into each count of the complaint.” See Johnson
Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., 162
F.3d 1290, 1333 (11th Cir. 1998); Chudasama v. Mazda
Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1359 n.9 (11th Cir. 1997)
(noting the “all-too-typical shotgun pleading”
where the first paragraph of each count “incorporates
by reference” all of the factual allegations).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit warns that
actions founded on shotgun pleadings should not be permitted
because “issues are not joined, discovery is not
controlled, the trial court's docket becomes
unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses
confidence in the court's ability to administer
justice.” See Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of
Cent. Fla. Cmty. College, 77 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir.
1996); see also Chapman AI Trans., 229 F.3d 1012,
1027 (11th Cir. 2000) (“We have frequently railed about
the evils of shotgun pleadings and urged district courts to
take a firm hand . . . .”). Heeding this warning, when
confronted with a shotgun complaint, district courts must
require the party to replead. See Paylor v. Hartford Fire
Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1127-28 (11th Cir. 2014)
(criticizing district court for failing to police shotgun
pleadings); Starship Enters. of Atlanta, Inc. v.
Coweta Cty. Ga., 708 F.3d 1243, 1250 n.7 (11th Cir.
2013) (explaining that shotgun pleadings may constitute
“an abusive tactic” of litigation).
43-page Complaint includes 222 numbered paragraphs. (Doc. 2.)
Paragraphs 19 through 40 set out general factual allegations,
while paragraphs 41 through 57 are “Plaintiff Specific
Factual Allegations.” (Id. ¶¶
19-57.) Paragraphs 70 through 222 are divided into twelve
counts, eleven of which Plaintiff “repeats, reiterates,
and re-alleges each and every allegation contained” in
the Complaint. (Id. ¶¶ 70, 81, 96, 102,
129, 146, 157, 165, 183, 203, 219.) This is impermissible. So
the Court finds that Defendant has justifiably complained
about having to respond to Plaintiff's shotgun
allegations. (Doc. 4.) Thus, Plaintiff must replead.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND
Defendant Boston Scientific's Motion to Dismiss
Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 4) is
Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as a shotgun pleading.
or before December 18, 2017, Plaintiff may
file an Amended Complaint that remedies the deficiency
identified in this Order.
Failure to file a timely amended pleading will result in
closing of ...