Escamilla v. Blackwood et al

Filing 3

ORDER -- Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On or before Friday, May 5, 2017, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 4/17/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
MYAVA R. ESCAMILLA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:17-cv-678-Orl-37TBS

RICHARD NICHOLAS BLACKWOOD;
and DOES 1–100,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
In the instant action, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
unfair trade practices. (Doc. 1 (“Complaint”).) For the reasons set forth below, the
Complaint is due to be dismissed without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun
pleading.
Shotgun pleadings come in a variety of forms. See, e.g., Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty.
Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015) (describing four categories of shotgun
pleadings). The most common type “is [one] containing 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.”
Id. at 1321. Such pleadings impose on the Court the onerous task of sifting out
irrelevancies to determine which facts are relevant to which causes of action. See id.
at 1323. Described as “altogether unacceptable,” by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
-1-

Eleventh Circuit, when a shotgun pleading is filed in this Court, repleader is required.
Cramer v. Florida, 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins.
Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1125–28 (11th Cir. 2014). If the Court does not require repleader, then
“all is lost.” Johnson Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 162 F.3d 1290, 1333
(11th Cir. 1998).
Here, the Complaint evidences the most common form of shotgun pleading, as
Counts II, III, and IV incorporate each of the preceding allegations. (See Doc. 1, ¶¶ 34, 39,
43.) This is impermissible, hence the Complaint must be dismissed. If Plaintiff chooses to
replead, the amended complaint must clearly delineate which factual allegations are
relevant to each claim.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2.

On or before Friday, May 5, 2017, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint
that remedies the deficiencies identified in this Order. Failure to timely file
may result in this action being closed without further notice.

3.

Plaintiff is also encouraged to access the resources available to pro se
litigants on the Court’s website. 1

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on April 17, 2017.

1 https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro_se/default.htm

-2-

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-