White v. Progressive Select Insurance Company

Filing 10

ORDER: Progressive's Motion for More Definite Statement and Motion to Strike 9 is granted to the extent that Plaintiff shall replead the amended complaint within 14 days of this Order. The Motion is denied with respect to the request that the Court strike Exhibit G. Progressive shall file its response within 14 days of service of Plaintiff's second amended complaint. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 11/20/2013. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

NORMAN WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:13-cv-2780-T-30AEP

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE
COMPANY and HUGHES INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Progressive Select Insurance
Company’s Motion for More Definite Statement and Motion to Strike (Dkt. 9). Upon review
of the motion and an independent examination of the amended complaint, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff’s amended complaint is subject to dismissal as a shotgun pleading.
As Defendant Progressive Select Insurance Company points out, the amended
complaint is a quintessential shotgun pleading that has been condemned on numerous
occasions by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
Consolidated, 516 F.3d 955, 979 n.54 (11th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). Several of the
counts incorporate by reference each allegation of the predecessor count. This pleading error
results in all of the counts but the first count containing irrelevant factual allegations and
legal conclusions. Under these circumstances, a district court has the inherent authority to

demand a repleader. See Lumley v. City of Dade City, Fla., 327 F.3d 1186, 1192 n.13 (11th
Cir. 2003) (noting that a district court should require a plaintiff to replead a shotgun
complaint).
The amended complaint also appears to be missing a page; there are no paragraphs
numbered 13 through 21.
Progressive also seeks to strike Exhibit G to the amended complaint because it
consists of Civil Remedy Notices from unrelated cases. It is well settled among courts in this
circuit that motions to strike are generally disfavored and will usually be denied unless it is
clear the pleading sought to be stricken is insufficient as a matter of law. See, e.g., Meth Lab
Cleanup, LLC v. Spaulding Decon, LLC, 2011 WL 398047, at *1 (M.D. Fla. 2011). A
review of the allegations related to Exhibit G demonstrates that Plaintiff included the Civil
Remedy Notices from other cases as examples of Progressive’s fraudulent practice of
utilizing falsified UN/UIM rejection forms to deny uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage
benefits. In other words, Exhibit G relates to Plaintiff’s fraud claim against Progressive.
Accordingly, the Court seeks no reason to strike Exhibit G at this point.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Progressive’s Motion for More Definite Statement and Motion to Strike (Dkt.
9) is granted to the extent that Plaintiff shall replead the amended complaint
within fourteen (14) days of this Order. The Motion is denied with respect to
the request that the Court strike Exhibit G.

Page 2 of 3

2.

Progressive shall file its response within fourteen (14) days of service of
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 20, 2013.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2013\13-cv-2780.mtdismiss-shotgun.frm

Page 3 of 3