Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER striking 1 Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order on or before January 20, 2015. 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 12/15/2014. (KAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL CHRISTIE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:14-cv-1429-J-34MCR

RAYONIER, INC., PAUL G. BOYNTON,
DAVID L. NUNES, H. EDWIN KIKER, and
HANS E. VANDEN NOORT,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated the instant action on
November 21, 2014, by filing a two-count Complaint, see Class Action Complaint for
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (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 36.1
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 Court cites to the pagination applied to the Complaint by the Court’s CM/ECF system
rather than the pagination applied to the Complaint by Plaintiff.
-2-

1.

The Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Doc.
No. 1) is STRICKEN.

2.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this
Order on or before January 20, 2015. Failure to do so may result in a
dismissal of this action.

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 December 15, 2014.

lc18
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-