PCM Services, LLC v. Carr et al

Filing 5

ORDER striking Plaintiff's 1 Complaint. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before April 30, 2018. Please see Order for details.Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 4/16/2018. (MMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
PCM SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:18-cv-474-J-34JRK

JOSEPH CARR, and
CONVERGEONE, INC.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated the instant action
on April 10, 2018, by filing a three-count Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief
(Doc. 1; Complaint). 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, Count II of the Complaint “realleges each and every
1

allegation . . . contained” in the Complaint, including all of the allegations set forth in Count
I. See Complaint at 12. Count III of the Complaint does the same, thereby including all
of the allegations set forth in Count I and II. See Complaint at 13.
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). 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.”).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
2

1.

The Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN.

2.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of
this Order on or before April 30, 2018. Failure to do so may result in a
dismissal of this action.

3.

Defendant 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 April 16, 2018.

lc26
Copies to:

Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties

3