Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying as moot 33 motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 24) is STRICKEN. On or before DECEMBER 17, 2015, Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 12/10/2015. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
GARLAND C. MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:15-cv-962-Orl-37TBS

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION;
SYSTEMS, INC.; CITIMORTGAGE,
INC.; and MERSCORP, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
On June 12, 2015, Plaintiff Garland Morris (“Plaintiff”) filed a 55-page Complaint
asserting 27 different state and federal claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,
Citimortgage Inc., and Merscrop, Inc. (See Doc. 1.) Each of Plaintiff’s 27 claims
incorporated by reference the first 195 paragraphs of the Complaint without regard to the
specific facts underlying each claim (see Doc. 1); therefore, the Complaint was stricken
by the Court, and Plaintiff was granted leave to amend (see Doc. 20). Upon review, the
Court finds that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 24), like his initial compliant, is an
impermissible shotgun pleading, which the Court must promptly strike—without reference
to the arguments raised in the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 33.)
During the past thirty years, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has
roundly and repeatedly condemned shotgun pleadings in all of their forms. See Weiland
v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015). In fact, the

Eleventh Circuit recently acknowledged its “thirty-year salvo of criticism aimed at shotgun
pleadings” and identified four categories of shotgun pleadings. See id. at 1321–1323.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not fall squarely into any of the four categories
identified in Weiland; nonetheless, it manifests they key characteristics of a shotgun
pleading in that it fails “to give [D]efendants adequate notice of the claims against them
and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” See id. at 132.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is now comprised of twelve claims, but it again fails
to precisely parcel out and identify the facts relevant to each claim. 1 As a result, the
reader—including the Court and Defendants—face the onerous and likely hopeless task
of sifting through the Amended Complaint to determine which facts are relevant to each
cause of action. This manner of pleading contravenes the mandate of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a) that pleadings contain “short and plain” statements “showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief” for the asserted claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Because the
Amended Complaint is altogether unacceptable the Court must require Plaintiff to
replead. See Cramer v. Florida, 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997). If Plaintiff chooses
to replead, his Second Amended Complaint must clearly delineate which factual
allegations are relevant to each claim. 2 If Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint that again
ignores this simple requirement, the Court will dismiss the pleading without further leave

1

Inexplicably, Plaintiff incorporates the first 195 paragraphs of his Amended
Complaint into his RESPA claim (see Doc. 24 ¶¶ 194–197), but still fails to precisely
identify the factual allegations relevant to each claim (see id. ¶¶ 194–258.)
2 Though Plaintiff’s complaint s due to be stricken as a shotgun pleading, the Court
notes that the Amended Complaint is not without additional defects. Consequently,
Plaintiff is directed to thoroughly review his Amended Complaint before amending his
complaint. Plaintiff is further advised to be mindful of his Rule 11 obligations. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11.

2

to amend.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The Amended Complaint (Doc. 24) is STRICKEN.

2.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) is DENIED AS MOOT AND
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3.

On or before DECEMBER 17, 2015, Plaintiff may file a Second
Amended Complaint consistent with the directives in this Order.

4.

Failure to timely file a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with the
requirements of this Order will result in closure of this action without further
notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on December 10, 2015

Copies:
Counsel of Record

3