United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT “GEICO INDEMNITY
COMPANY'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT”
BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant “GEICO
Indemnity Company's Motion to Dismiss Complaint”
(Doc. # 3), filed by counsel on October 3, 2019. Plaintiff
did not file a response in opposition to the motion. After
reviewing the motion, court file, and the record, the Court
finds as follows:
November 8, 2018, Plaintiff David Samples was involved in a
motorcycle accident. On August 21, 2019, he filed a
three-count complaint in state court against Defendant GEICO
Indemnity Company (GEICO) alleging (1) breach of contract;
(2) uninsured motorist (UM) benefits; and (3) violations of
§ 624.144, Florida Statutes (bad faith). On
September 26, 2019, GEICO removed this action to federal
court based on diversity jurisdiction. In GEICO's motion
to dismiss, it contends (1) the complaint constitutes a
shotgun pleading, and (2) Count III should be dismissed
without prejudice because the bad faith claim is premature.
The Court agrees.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). “Although Rule 8(a) does not require
‘detailed factual allegations,' it does require
‘more than labels and conclusions'; a
‘formulaic recitation of the cause of action will not
do.'” Young v. Lexington Ins. Co., No.
18-62468, 2018 WL 7572240, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2018),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-62468-CIV,
2019 WL 1112274 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2019) (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). In order to
survive a motion to dismiss, factual allegations must be
sufficient “to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, review is generally limited
to the four corners of the complaint. Rickman v.
Precisionaire, Inc., 902 F.Supp. 232, 233 (M.D. Fla.
1995). Furthermore, when reviewing a complaint for facial
sufficiency, a court “must accept [a] [p]laintiff's
well pleaded facts as true, and construe the [c]omplaint in
the light most favorable to the [p]laintiff.”
Id. (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.
232, 236 (1974)).
shotgun pleading is one where “it is virtually
impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to
support which claim(s) for relief” and the defendant
therefore cannot be “expected to frame a responsive
pleading.” See Anderson v. Dist. Bd. Of
Trustees of Cent. Fla. Cmty. College, 77 F.3d 364, 366
(11th Cir. 1996). The Eleventh Circuit has identified four
primary types of shotgun pleadings:
(1) Complaints 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;
(2) Complaints that do not commit the mortal sin of
re-alleging all preceding counts but are guilty of the venial
sin of being replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial
facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of
(3) Complaints that commit the sin of not separating into a
different count each cause of action or claim for relief; and
(4) Complaints that assert multiple claims against multiple
defendants without specifying which of the defendants are
responsible for which actions or omissions, or which of the
defendants the claim is brought against.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792
F.3d 1313, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2015). A district court must
generally permit a plaintiff at least one opportunity to
amend a shotgun complaint's deficiencies before
dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Vibe Micro, ...