USAA Casualty Insurance Company v. Titeflex Corporation

Filing 7

ORDERED: Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint curing the shotgun nature of the Complaint on or before May 12, 2017. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 4/24/2017. (PTB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00456-J-34JBT
vs.
TITEFLEX CORPORATION,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff USAA Casualty Insurance
Company (USAA) initiated the instant action by filing a two-count Complaint (Doc. No. 2;
Complaint) against Defendant Titeflex Corporation (Titeflex) in state court. On April 18,
2017, Titeflex removed the action to this Court. See Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1;
Notice). 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.
-1-

See id. Here, Count II of the Complaint “repeats and realleges” all of the allegations set
forth in Count I. See Complaint ¶ 23.
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 USAA 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. 2) is STRICKEN.

-2-

2.

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

Complaint on or before May 12, 2017. 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 April 24, 2017.

lc24
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-