Carrie Luft v. Citigroup Global Markets Realt, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Carrie Luft. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 14-11936

Date Filed: 07/07/2015

Page: 1 of 7

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11936
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00703-JES-CM

CARRIE LUFT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS REALTY CORPORATION,
CITI PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC.,
f.k.a. Liquidation Properties,
ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS, INC.,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
LONE STAR FUNDS, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 7, 2015)

Case: 14-11936

Date Filed: 07/07/2015

Page: 2 of 7

Before MARCUS, PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Carrie Luft, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal with
prejudice of her second amended complaint, in which Luft challenged the
foreclosure on her home. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
Luft filed a two-count complaint against Defendants Citigroup Global
Markets Realty Corporation and Citi Property Holdings, Inc. (“Citi Defendants”).
After Citi Defendants moved to dismiss, Luft filed a motion for leave to amend her
complaint, also requesting that the court relax the federal pleading standards. The
district court granted Luft leave to amend her complaint but explained that Luft
was required to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and with the pleading standards set out
in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), and in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009).
Luft then filed a four-count first amended complaint against five named
defendants, including both Citi Defendants. The district court dismissed the
complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

2

Case: 14-11936

Date Filed: 07/07/2015

Page: 3 of 7

The district court granted Luft leave to file a second amended complaint. In
doing so, the district court described Luft’s complaint as a “shotgun pleading” and
instructed Luft to “replead each of her claims and to specify which factual
allegations are relevant to each count,” in accordance with the federal pleading
standards. In a later order (ruling on Luft’s motion for clarification and for an
extension of time) the district court explained again the pleading requirements of
Rule 8.
Luft filed a 117-page second amended complaint, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. This second amended complaint purports to allege 7
claims against 13 named defendants, including both Citi Defendants.
Citi Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Citi Defendants relied in part on
documents outside the pleadings, Luft moved -- and Citi Defendants agreed -- to
have the court convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
As a result, the district court denied Citi Defendants’ motion to dismiss; and Citi
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Luft responded, opposing the
motion.
By a thorough written opinion, the district court then dismissed with
prejudice Luft’s second amended complaint, concluding that -- despite the court’s
repeated and detailed instructions about how to cure the deficiencies in her
3

Case: 14-11936

Date Filed: 07/07/2015

Page: 4 of 7

complaint -- Luft still failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rules 8 and 10.
The district court described Luft’s second amended complaint as “a quintessential
‘shotgun’ pleading replete with factual allegations and rambling legal
conclusions.” In the alternative, the district court also concluded that each of
Luft’s seven claims should be dismissed either for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The
district court then denied as moot Citi Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
We review de novo a district court’s order dismissing a complaint with
prejudice, “accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605
F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2010). Although we construe liberally pro se
pleadings, pro se litigants must still conform to procedural rules. Albra v. Advan,
Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
Construed liberally, Luft raises four arguments on appeal: (1) that the district
court erred in concluding that Luft failed to satisfy the federal pleading
requirements; (2) that the district court erred in dismissing Count 4 for failure to
identify a governmental actor; (3) that the district court erred in dismissing Luft’s
complaint before ruling on Citi Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and
(4) that the district court erred in refusing to admit into evidence Exhibit M1.

4

Case: 14-11936

Date Filed: 07/07/2015

Page: 5 of 7

As an initial matter, because Luft failed to challenge the district court’s
independent, alternative reasons -- no jurisdiction or failure to state a claim -- for
dismissing Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, she has abandoned those arguments. See
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, we focus on the
district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Count 4, in which Luft purports to assert
a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
To comply with the federal pleading standards, Luft is required to, among
other things, provide “a short and plain statement” of her claims showing that she
is entitled to relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). She is also required to present each
of her claims in a separate numbered paragraph, with each paragraph “limited as
far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b).
A complaint that fails to comply with Rules 8 and 10 may be classified as a
“shotgun pleading.” See Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1129-30 (11th Cir.
2001). When faced with a shotgun pleading, a district court must order a litigant to
replead for a more definite statement of the claim. Id. at 1133. When the amended
complaint still fails to cure the deficiency, the complaint may be subject to
dismissal. See id.
Here, the district court determined expressly that Luft’s first amended
complaint was a “shotgun pleading” and twice granted Luft leave to amend her
complaint to satisfy the federal pleading requirements. Despite the court’s detailed
5

Case: 14-11936

Date Filed: 07/07/2015

Page: 6 of 7

and repeated instructions, Luft’s second amended complaint still failed to provide a
“short and plain statement” of her claims. Instead of clarifying and providing
factual support for her existing claims, Luft amended her complaint by adding
several new defendants, several new causes of action, and by seeking class
certification. In the light of Luft’s continued failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10
and of Luft’s failure to comply with the court’s repeated orders to cure the
deficiencies in her complaint, the district court committed no error in dismissing
with prejudice Luft’s second amended complaint.
To be more specific about the district court’s alternative ground for
dismissing Count 4, we agree with the district court’s determination that Luft failed
to allege sufficiently that Citi Defendants were governmental actors or that a
conspiracy existed. Luft’s argument that Citi Defendants acted under color of law
by using the state judicial system to effectuate the foreclosure proceedings is
without merit. Moreover, because Luft’s Count 4 consists only of conclusory
allegations with no pertinent factual support, she has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
We reject Luft’s contention that the district court erred in dismissing her
complaint without first ruling on Citi Defendants’ pending motion for summary
judgment. Luft’s complaint was insufficient on its face; so the district court was
under no obligation to consider the merits of Luft’s claims by ruling on Citi
6

Case: 14-11936

Date Filed: 07/07/2015

Page: 7 of 7

Defendants’ summary judgment motion. See Johnson Enters. of Jacksonville v.
Fpl Grp., 162 G.3d 1290, 1333 (11th Cir. 1998) (“district courts have the power
and the duty to define the issues at the earliest stages of litigation”); Byrne, 261
F.3d at 1129-34 (discussing the importance of a district court’s early sua sponte
intervention to ensure compliance with the federal pleading requirements).
In dismissing with prejudice Luft’s complaint, the district court ordered
terminated all pending motions, including implicitly Luft’s outstanding motion to
admit Exhibit M1 into evidence. Because the district court’s dismissal with
prejudice of Luft’s complaint rendered Luft’s discovery motion moot, the district
court committed no error in terminating the motion.
AFFIRMED.

7