United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Boston Scientific
Corporation's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) and Plaintiff
Felicia Davis' opposition thereto (Doc. 17). As explained
below, the Court will dismiss without prejudice the Complaint
as a shotgun pleading.
a product liability suit. Eight years ago, Boston
Scientific's Greenfield Vena Cava Filter was implanted in
Davis to treat her pulmonary embolism. About six years later,
she began to complain about pain and discomfort in her chest.
This led to two hospitalizations in less than two years. It
is Davis' position that the implant has caused her
substantial injuries and health complications. She thus filed
this suit in Florida state court, alleging strict liability,
negligence, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, fraudulent
misrepresentation and concealment, and negligent
misrepresentation. (Doc. 2). Boston Scientific timely removed
the case to this Court (Doc. 1) and moved to dismiss the
Complaint for, among other things, being a shotgun pleading
Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 provide the minimum
requirements for pleadings. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint
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). Rule 10(b) further provides that
“[a] party must state its claims or defenses in
numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a
single set of circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). A
problem arises when a plaintiff fails to follow the rules.
One such problem is a “shotgun pleading.” A
common type of shotgun complaint is a pleading
“containing 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.” Weiland v.
Palm Beach Cnty. Sherriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313,
1322 (11th Cir. 2015).
in the Eleventh Circuit have little tolerance for shotgun
pleadings. See Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, No.
16-15276, 2018 WL 268849, at *2 (11th Cir. Jan. 3, 2018)
(citations omitted). This is because, among other things,
“[t]hey waste scarce judicial resources,
‘inexorably broaden the scope of discovery, '
‘wreak havoc on appellate court dockets, ' and
‘undermine the public's respect for the
courts.'” Id. (citation omitted); see
also Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323 (stating
[s]hotgun pleadings “in one way or another, [fail] to
give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against
them and the grounds upon which each claim rests”
(footnoted omitted)). Consequently, when faced with a shotgun
pleading, a district court should require the plaintiff to
file an amended complaint rather than allow the case to
proceed to trial. See Paylor v. Hartford Fire
Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1127-28 (11th Cir. 2014)
(criticizing the district court for not policing shotgun
the Complaint is a typical shotgun pleading. Paragraphs 19
through 40 set out general factual allegations, while
paragraphs 41 through 58 are “Plaintiff Specific
Factual Allegations.” (Doc. 2 at ¶¶ 19-58).
Paragraphs 71 through 223 are divided into twelve counts,
eleven of which Davis “repeats, reiterates, and
re-alleges each and every allegation contained” in the
Complaint. (Doc. 2 at ¶¶ 71, 82, 97, 103, 130, 147,
158, 166, 184, 204, 220). This is impermissible under the
pleading requirements. See Kendall v. Boston
Scientific Corp., No. 6:17-cv-1888-Orl-37GJK, 2017 WL
6042020, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2017). Davis thus must file
an amended complaint.
it is now ORDERED:
(1) Defendant Boston Scientific's Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 7) is GRANTED.
(2) The Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED without
(3) Plaintiff Felicia Davis may file, on or before
January 23, 2018, an amended complaint that
remedies the deficiency identified in this Order.
Failure to file a timely amended pleading will result
in the closing of this case without further notice
 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF
may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience.
Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are
subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other
websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any ...