Prevatte et al v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 12 motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 9/19/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
MICHAEL SHAWN PREVATTE; and
LAURA PREVATTE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 5:17-cv-390-Oc-37PRL

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; and CBRE,
INC.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant CBRE, Inc.’s (“CBRE”) Motion to Dismiss Count III
of Plaintiffs’ Complaint or Alternatively for a More Definite Statement. (Doc. 12.) CBRE
seeks dismissal of Count III of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, a loss of consortium claim, averring
that it constitutes a “shotgun pleading” and “commingles allegations against both
Defendants without distinction.” (Id. at 2.)
Although technically speaking Count III could constitute a “shotgun pleading” by
realleging all preceding paragraphs (see Doc. 2, ¶27), the concerns implicated by such
pleading practices are not raised when plaintiffs, as exemplified here, bring derivative
claims. Because CBRE is capable of responding to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as
drafted, the Court will not order repleader or a more definite statement. 1

The Court notes that co-Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA already answered the
Amended Complaint. (See Doc. 17.)
1

-1-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant CBRE, Inc.’s
Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs’ Complaint or Alternatively for a More Definite
Statement (Doc. 12) is DENIED.

2017.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on September 19,

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-2-