Sheets et al v. Sorrento Villas, Section 5, Association, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER: Defendants Argus Property Management, Inc.'s and Linda Benford's Motion to Dismiss Complaint 19 is GRANTED to the extent that the complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading and improperly lumps Defendants together in the a llegations. Plaintiffs have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to amend their complaint to fix these pleading deficiencies. Failure to amend by that time may result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 8/31/2015. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

KIRSTEN SHEETS, JASON KALAGHER
and JANSON MURPHY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:15-cv-1674-T-30JSS

SORRENTO VILLAS, SECTION 5,
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants Argus Property
Management, Inc.’s and Linda Benford’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Dkt. #19). Upon
review and consideration, the Court grants the motion.
Plaintiffs’ complaint is an impermissible shotgun complaint.

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 (i.e., all but the first)
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); see also
Johnson Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 162 F.3d 1290, 1333 (11th Cir.
1998). Shotgun pleadings make it “virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact
are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent.
Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). As a result, shotgun pleadings are

routinely condemned by the Eleventh Circuit. See, e .g., Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d
1465, 1518 (11th Cir. 1991) (“Anyone schooled in the law who read these [shotgun
pleading] complaints ... [ ] would know that many of the facts alleged could not possibly
be material to all of the counts. Consequently, [the opposing party] and the district court
[have] to sift through the facts presented and decide for themselves which [are] material to
the particular cause of action asserted, a difficult and laborious task indeed.”).
Also, the allegations improperly lump Defendants together without specifying
which Defendant performed which act.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Defendants Argus Property Management, Inc.’s and Linda Benford’s Motion

to Dismiss Complaint (Dkt. #19) is GRANTED to the extent that the complaint is an
impermissible shotgun pleading and improperly lumps Defendants together in the
allegations.
2.

Plaintiffs have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to amend their

complaint to fix these pleading deficiencies. Failure to amend by that time may result in
the dismissal of this action without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 31st day of August, 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2015\15-cv-1674 mtd 19.docx

2