United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
CHRISTINE E. MARFUT, Plaintiff,
THE GARDENS OF GULF COVE POA, INC, JOHN ANDERSON, BREEN LUCILLE, JACK ARLINGHAUS, DAHL HERMAN, FRED STREIF, NAJMY THOMPSON PL, STEPHEN W. THOMPSON, JOSEPH NAJMY, LOUIS NAJMY, RICHARD WELLER, RANDOLF L. SMITH and MICHAEL J. SMITH, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Najmy
Thompson, P.L., Stephen W. Thompson, Joseph Najmy, Louis
Najmy, Richard Weller, Randolph L. Smith, and Michael J.
Smith's (collectively “Najmy Defendants”)
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) filed on November 27, 2017.
Pro se Plaintiff Christine E. Marfut
(“Marfut”) filed an objection to the Najmy
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) on December 8,
2017. Defendants Gardens of Gulf Coast POA, Inc., Lucille
Breen, Herman Dahl, Jack Arlinghaus, Fred Streif, and John
Anderson (collectively “Association Defendants”)
filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) on December 5, 2017, and
a Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38) on January 4, 2018.
addition, this Court will consider Marfut's Motion to
Strike (Doc. 33) Najmy Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and
her Motion to Strike (Doc. 39) Association Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss. The Najmy Defendants filed a Response to
Marfut's Motion to Strike (Doc. 45) on January 11, 2018.
The Association Defendants filed a Response to Marfut's
Motion to Strike (Doc. 48) on January 22, 2018. These matters
are ripe for review.
the Court can discern, the pertinent facts are as follows.
This matter stems from fraudulent actions associated with an
ongoing state foreclosure case. (Doc. 1). Marfut owns a home
in Port Charlotte, Florida, and is a member of a
homeowner's association, Gardens of Gulf Cove, POA. (Doc.
1 at 2). Defendants John Anderson, Breen Lucille, Jack
Arlinghaus, Herman Dahl, and Fred Streif are officers or
directors at Gardens of Gulf Cove, POA. (Doc. 1 at 2).
Defendant Najmy Thompson, PL is the law firm responsible for
collections for Gardens of Gulf Cove, POA, and Stephen W.
Thompson, Joseph Najmy, Louis Najmy, Richard Weller, Randolph
L. Smith, and Michael J. Smith are principal members or
associates at that law firm. (Doc. 1 at 2).
to Marfut, Defendants engaged in calculated fraudulent
actions in an attempt to obtain title to her home through an
ongoing foreclosure case. (Doc. 1) In particular, Defendants
fabricated debt, fined Marfut illegally, and falsified
amounts owed by Marfut. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 8, 12, 52).
Defendants then created fraudulent liens on Marfut's home
that serve as the basis for the foreclosure action. (Doc. 1
at ¶¶ 8, 12, 52). In response, Marfut brought this
action and seeks injunctive relief stopping the foreclosure
action and monetary damages. (Doc. 1).
Defendants move to dismiss Marfut's Complaint under
various legal theories. And Marfut seeks to strike
Defendants' Motions under Rule 12(f). After review, the
Court denies Marfut's Motions to Strike and dismisses the
Motion to Strike
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a “court may
strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” Rule 12(f) motions are limited to striking
pleadings, which include complaints, answers, and a reply to
an answer. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see
alsoFed. R. Civ. P. 7 (limiting pleadings to complaints,
answers, and certain replies). So these type of motions
cannot be used to strike other motions. See Feingold v.
Budner, 08-80539-CIV, 2008 WL 4610031, at *3 (S.D. Fla.
Oct. 10, 2008). Further, motions to strike are considered
dramatic remedies and are disfavored by courts. See
Blake v. Batmasian, 318 F.R.D. 698, 700 (S.D. Fla.
2017); Gilbert v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 95
F.Supp.3d 1358, 1361 (M.D. Fla. 2015).
Motion to Dismiss
pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). Rule 8 also requires
that defendants have sufficient notice of the claims against
them. See Carvel v. Godley, 404 Fed.Appx.
359, 361 (11th Cir. 2010). Shotgun pleadings, which have been
consistently condemned by the Eleventh Circuit, are the
antithesis of a short and plain statement under Rule 8.
See Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284
(11th Cir. 2001). These type of pleadings fall into four
[t]he most common type-by a long shot-is a complaint
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. The next most common
type, at least as far as our published opinions on the
subject reflect, is a complaint that does not commit the
mortal sin of re-alleging all preceding counts but is guilty
of the venial sin of being replete with conclusory, vague,
and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action. The third type of shotgun
pleading is one that commits the sin of not separating into a
different count each cause of action or claim for relief.
Fourth, and finally, there is the relatively rare sin of
asserting multiple claims against multiple defendants without
specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which
acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is
Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Off., 792
F.3d 1313, 1321-23 (11th Cir. 2015). The tether that ties
these pleadings together is the failure to give
defendant's notice of the claims against them.
Id. Against that ...