Kilmer v. Stryker Corporation et al
Filing
3
ORDER striking 2 Complaint. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order on or before September 2, 2014. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 8/18/2014. (MHM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
DEBRA KILMER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 5:14-cv-456-Oc-34PRL
STRYKER CORPORATION, and
STRYKER SALES CORPORATION,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated the instant action in
state court by filing a seven-count Complaint, see Complaint and Jury Demand (Doc. 2), and
on August 15, 2014, Defendant removed the action to this Court. See Notice of Removal
(Doc. 1). Upon review, the Court finds that the 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 Complaint incorporates by
reference all allegations of the preceding counts. See Complaint at 8, 9, 11-14.
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 Complaint and Jury Demand (Doc. 2) is STRICKEN.
2.
Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this
Order on or before September 2, 2014. Failure to do so may result in a
dismissal of this action.
-2-
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 in Chambers on August 18, 2014.
lc11
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?