LANARD TOYS LIMITED v. TOYS "R" US-DELAWARE,INC. et al
Filing
97
ORDER striking 61 Amended Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order on or before August 10, 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. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 7/9/2015. (KAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
LANARD TOYS LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 3:15-cv-849-J-34PDB
TOYS “R” US, INC - DELAWARE, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated the instant action on
March 27, 2014, by filing the Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury (Doc. 1) in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed the fourcount Amended Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury (Doc. 61; Amended Complaint).
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey transferred the case to this
district on June 16, 2015 (Doc. 92). Upon review, the Court finds that the Amended
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, each count in the
Amended Complaint incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding counts. See
Amended Complaint at 12, 13, 14.
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 Amended Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury (Doc. 61) is
STRICKEN.
-2-
2.
Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint consistent with the directives
of this Order on or before August 10, 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 July 9, 2015.
lc18
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?