T-Shirt Bordello, LLC v. Ripple Junction Design Company et al

Filing 4

ORDERED: The 1 Complaint is stricken. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order on or before September 19, 2014. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action. Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint in accordance with the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 8/22/2014. (KAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
T-SHIRT BORDELLO, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:14-cv-999-J-34JBT

RIPPLE JUNCTION DESIGN COMPANY,
JOHN DOES 1-5 (Designer-Copier(s)),
JOHN DOES 6-10 (Distributor(s)), and
JOHN DOES 11-15 (Miscellaneous
Malefactors presently unknown, also
liable),
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated the instant action on
August 20, 2014, by filing a two-count Complaint, see Complaint, Injunctive Relief Sought
(Doc. No. 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, the second count in the Complaint incorporates by
reference all allegations of the preceding count. See Complaint at 9.

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 ORDERED:
1.

The Complaint, Injunctive Relief Sought (Doc. No. 1) is STRICKEN.

2.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this
Order on or before September 19, 2014. Failure to do so may result in a
dismissal of this action.

-2-

3.

Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint in accordance with the
requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on August 22, 2014.

lc18
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-