Rodriguez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

Filing 27

ORDER granting 10 Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles See attached document for full details. (hs01)

Case 1:22-cv-20062-DPG Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 22-cv-20062-DPG
ROBERT J. RODRIGUEZ
Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant,

/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 10]. The Court has reviewed
the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
On January 5, 2022, Plaintiff Robert J. Rodriguez filed this action against Defendant
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “Complaint”). [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a
consumer reporting agency (“CRA”) and reported derogatory and inaccurate statements and
information about Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s credit history to third parties. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. The Complaint
sets forth a claim for a violation of §1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) (Count
1) and Florida common law claims for defamation, negligence, and invasion of privacy (Counts
2–4). Id.
Defendant now moves to dismiss the Complaint. Defendant argues that (1) Plaintiff fails
to state a claim for a violation of §1681e(b) because Defendant is not a CRA; (2) even if Plaintiff
were proceeding under the provisions of the FCRA for furnishers of credit information, he fails to
1

Case 1:22-cv-20062-DPG Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 2 of 4

allege the requisite elements of a claim; (3) the common law claims are preempted by the FCRA;
and (4) Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege the common law claims.
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Complaint is a shotgun pleading. To state a
claim for relief, a pleading must contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction . . .; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Additionally,
“[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The federal pleading standards
thus “require the pleader to present [her] claims discretely and succinctly, so that, [her] adversary
can discern what [she] is claiming and . . . the court can determine which facts support which
claims and whether the plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief can be granted . . .
.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015)
(quoting T.D.S. Inc. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 760 F.2d 1520, 1544 n.14 (11th Cir. 1985) (Tjoflat,
J., dissenting)).
“Complaints that either violate Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both, are often disparagingly
referred to as shotgun pleadings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court has the
obligation to identify and dismiss a shotgun pleading. See Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748
F.3d 1117, 1126-27 (11th Cir. 2014). The Eleventh Circuit generally considers a complaint to be
a shotgun pleading if, among other pleading deficiencies, it: “contain[s] 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.” Weiland, 792
F.3d at 1321. Shotgun pleadings “fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against

2

Case 1:22-cv-20062-DPG Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 3 of 4

them and the grounds upon which each claim rests . . . [and] waste scarce judicial resources,
inexorably broaden the scope of discovery, wreak havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine
the public's respect for the courts.” Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App'x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018)
(per curiam) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed as an impermissible shotgun pleading because
Plaintiff improperly incorporated all of the factual allegations into each count, without properly
tying each of those factual allegations to the claims raised. See Innova Inv. Grp., LLC v. Village of
Key Biscayne, No. 19-CIV-22540, 2020 WL 6781821, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2020) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a). In addition, each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts. Weiland, 792
F.3d at 1321. As a result of these pleading deficiencies, the Court is unable to ascertain which facts
support which claims and whether Plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief can be granted.
Therefore, the Complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun
pleading. 1
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Motion of Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Complaint, [ECF No. 10], is GRANTED.

Because the Court finds that the Complaint is a shotgun pleading, it does not address Defendant’s additional
arguments regarding the sufficiency of the allegations or preemption. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s
allegations under the FCRA appear to be deficient. Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant is a CRA conflicts with other
information in the Complaint that suggest that Defendant is a furnisher of information. Moreover, Plaintiff does not
allege that he disputed Defendant’s reporting of accounts to any CRA or that any CRA notified Defendant of such a
dispute—required elements to a FCRA claim against a furnisher of information. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).

1

3

Case 1:22-cv-20062-DPG Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 4 of 4

2.

The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file an Amended

Complaint on or before December 2, 2022.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st day of November,
2022.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4