United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is pro se Defendant Ani Katiuska
Daza's (“Daza”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10)
filed on September 19, 2019. Plaintiff Ryan Sean Mangel
(“Mangel”) filed a Response to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) on October 2, 2019. For the
following reasons, the Court finds the Amended Complaint is
due to be dismissed as an impermissible shotgun pleading.
brings this defamation action against his ex-wife, Daza.
(Doc. 8). Fifteen years ago, Mangel and Daza, a citizen of
Venezuela, married in Canada. (Id. at 3). Mangel
adopted Daza's son, M.M. (Id.). Daza and M.M.
obtained residency in Canada. (Id.). Together Mangel
and Daza had a daughter, A.M., who is a Canadian citizen.
March 2016, Mangel relocated his family to Naples, Florida,
and began the process of obtaining United States Green Cards
for Daza and their children. (Id.).
martial strife, Mangel filed for divorce in February 2017.
(Id. at 4). Ultimately, however, Mangel dismissed
the divorce action. (Id.). Subsequently, Daza
petitioned Mangel for divorce, which became final in August
2018. (Id.). Meanwhile, Daza allowed her and
M.M.'s Canadian residency to expire. (Id.).
Because Daza's Green Card was predicated on her marriage
to Mangel, her application for United States citizenship was
due to be cancelled. (Id. at 3). Based on her
illegal immigration status, Daza and her children faced
deportation to Venezuela. (Id. at 5). To gain
attention about her immigration crisis, Daza took to the
local news media in February 2019. (Id.). Mangel
states Daza published the following five false or implicitly
false statements about him to the media, which were broadcast
by television and the internet:
• It came as a shock when he asked for a divorce;
• Mangel moved away and has not petitioned his children
to become citizens;
• Mangel destroyed M.M.'s dream of going to college
and becoming a video-game developer;
• Mangel does not care for his children;
• Daza can't file paperwork to be a citizen here in
the U.S. because she has no legal standing unless Mangel
petitions her or she marries an American citizen. Daza
doesn't want to return to Venezuela because of the war
and hunger in the country, the neighborhood is crime ridden,
and her children don't even speak Spanish.
(Id. at 7-8). As a result of Daza's statements,
Mangel contends he has suffered a strained relationship with
his children and a loss to his reputation and business
opportunities as a doctor. (Id. at 8-9).
Mangel sues Daza for one count of defamation. (Id.
at 6-10). Daza moves the Court to dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 10). However,
because the Third Amended Complaint constitutes an
impermissible shotgun pleading, the Court has a duty to
intervene sua sponte and order repleader.
See Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1133
(11th Cir. 2001) (abrogated on other grounds) (“[I]f in
the face of shotgun complaint, the defendant does not move
the district court to require a more definite statement, the
court . . . must intervene sua sponte and order
Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 set 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). And Rule 10(b) says “[a] party
must state its claims . . . in numbered paragraphs, each
limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). Problems arise when
a plaintiff does not follow these rules. And a shotgun
pleading is such a problem. There are four impermissible
shotgun pleadings, one of which is at issue here. This
“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.” Weiland v. Palm Beach County
Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1323-24 (11th Cir.
2015) (footnote omitted).
in the Eleventh Circuit have little tolerance for shotgun
pleadings.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878
F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). They
“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. (internal quotes and citation
omitted). And they fail “to give the defendants