Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RGB Ventures, LLC

Filing 5

ORDER striking 1 Complaint. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint curing the shotgun nature of the Complaint on or before November 23, 2016. See order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 10/26/2016. (PTB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL GRECCO PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:16-cv-1335-J-34PDB
vs.
RGB VENTURES, LLC,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Michael Grecco Productions,
Inc. (Grecco), initiated the instant action on October 24, 2016, by filing its five-count
Complaint (Doc. No. 1; Complaint) against Defendant RGB Ventures, LLC (RGB). Upon
review, the Court finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading.”
A shotgun complaint contains “multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of
all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the
last count to be a combination of the entire complaint.” See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty.
Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 & n.11 (11th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases). As a result,
“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, Counts II through V of the Complaint

1 

incorporate by reference all of Grecco’s prior allegations, including almost all of the
allegations set forth in each preceding count. See Complaint ¶¶ 36, 46, 54, 62.
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
Cnty., 573 F.3d 1143, 1151 (11th Cir. 2009) (“We have had much to say about shotgun
pleadings, none of which is favorable.”) (collecting cases). Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit
has engaged in a “thirty-year salvo of criticism aimed at shotgun pleadings, and there is no
ceasefire in sight.” See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321 & n.9 (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 Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321 n.10
(“[W]e have also advised that when a defendant fails to [move for a more definite
statement], the district court ought to take the initiative to dismiss or strike the shotgun
pleading and give the plaintiff an opportunity to replead.”).
In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Grecco an opportunity to file an amended
complaint which corrects the shotgun nature of the Complaint.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is STRICKEN.

2 

2.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint curing the shotgun nature of the

Complaint on or before November 23, 2016. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of
this action.
3.

Defendant shall respond to any amended complaint in accordance with the

requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on this 26th day of October, 2016.

lc24
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

3