Upfitters, L.L.C. v. Brooking et al
Filing
65
ORDER striking Defendants' 57 Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint. Defendants shall file an amended Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint on or before February 8, 2019. Please see Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 1/18/2019. (MMG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
UPFITTERS, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 3:18-cv-496-J-34PDB
RICHARD K. BROOKING, EDWARD
SPENCER BROOKING, BROOKING
INDUSTRIES, INC., AND DANA SAFETY
SUPPLY, INC.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Defendants filed a Counterclaim
and Third-Party Complaint (Doc. 57, Counterclaim) with the Court on January 16, 2019.
Upon review, the Court finds that the Counterclaim 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
1
of the Counterclaim “reallege[s] and incorporate[s] by reference as if fully stated herein
the allegations of the preceding paragraphs” in the Defendants’ Counterclaim. See
Counterclaim at ¶ 39. The same is true for Count III, which includes the same language,
thereby incorporating all the allegations set forth in the proceeding counts. See id. at ¶
45.
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.”).
2
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
The Defendants’ Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint is STRICKEN.
2.
Defendants shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives
of this Order on or before February 8, 2019. Failure to do so may result in
a dismissal of this action.
3.
Plaintiff shall respond to the amended Counterclaims and Third-Party
Complaint in accordance with the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on January 18, 2019.
lc26
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties
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?