Cain v. Aecom, Inc.

Filing 4

ORDER striking 1 Complaint; directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order on or before March 18, 2014. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 2/25/2014. (JAL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
JEROD CAIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:14-cv-214-J-34JBT

AECOM, INC., a Foreign Profit
Corporation,
Defendant.
_____________________________
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated the instant action on
February 24, 2014, by filing a three-count Complaint. (Doc. 1; Complaint). Upon review, the
Court finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” A shotgun
complaint “contains several counts, each one incorporating by reference the allegations of
its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts . . . contain irrelevant factual
allegations and legal conclusions.” Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg
Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). Consequently, in ruling on the sufficiency of
a claim, the Court is faced with the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies in order to decide
for itself which facts are relevant to a particular cause of action asserted. See id. Here,
Plaintiff’s Count II in the Complaint incorporates by reference all allegations of all of the
preceding count.

See generally Complaint.

Additionally, the Complaint is confusing

inasmuch as it sets forth two “Count I” claims.
In the Eleventh Circuit, shotgun pleadings of this sort are “altogether unacceptable.”
Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Cook v. Randolph

County, 573 F.3d 1143, 1151 (11th Cir. 2009)(“We have had much to say about shotgun
pleadings, none of which is favorable.”)(collecting cases).

As the Court in Cramer

recognized, “[s]hotgun pleadings, whether filed by plaintiff or defendant, exact an intolerable
toll on the trial court’s docket, lead to unnecessary and unchanneled discovery, and impose
unwarranted expense on the litigants, the court and the court’s parajudicial personnel and
resources.” Cramer, 117 F.3d at 1263. When faced with the burden of deciphering a
shotgun pleading, it is the trial court’s obligation to strike the pleading on its own initiative,
and force the plaintiff to replead to the extent possible under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See id. (admonishing district court for not striking shotgun complaint on its own
initiative); see also United States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350, 1354 n.6 (11th
Cir. 2006)(“When faced with a shotgun pleading, the trial court, whether or not requested to
do so by a party’s adversary, ought to require the party to file a repleader.”)(citing Byrne v.
Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1133 (11th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds as recognized
by Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2011)).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

The Complaint (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN.

2.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this

Order on or before March 18, 2014. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action.

-2-

3.

Defendant shall respond to the amended complaint in accordance with the

requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 25th day of February, 2014.

lc12
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-