Woelfe v. Life Partners, Inc. et al

Filing 56

ORDER Requiring Plaintiffs to Replead Complaint; Cancelling 12/19/2014 Motion Hearing. See Order for details. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 12/17/2014. (sry)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 14-80433-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
JOHN WOELFEL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LIFE PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO REPLEAD COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. The Court recently set a hearing on
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [DE 20] (“Motion”).
But after further reviewing the Motion and the First Amended Complaint, the Court will
cancel the motion hearing and require Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint as
discussed below.
Defendants’ Motion contends that the First Amended Complaint “utilizes ‘shotgun
pleading’ and incorporates every antecedent allegation by reference into each
subsequent claim for relief.” DE 20 at 9; see DE 34 (Defs.’ Reply) at 5. In a shotgun
pleading, each claim incorporates by reference all earlier allegations of the complaint,
regardless of whether those allegations are pertinent to the respective claims.
See Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293,
1995 (11th Cir. 2002). Thus, a shotgun pleading “fails to adequately link a cause of
action to its factual predicates,” Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273,
1275 (11th Cir. 2006), and makes 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). The Eleventh Circuit has
“roundly, repeatedly and consistently condemn[ed]” shotgun pleadings. Davis v. CocaCola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 979 (11th Cir. 2008); see Paylor v. Hartford
Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1125-26 & n.2 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing twenty-two published
Eleventh Circuit decisions “condemning shotgun pleadings”).
The Court agrees with Defendants that the First Amended Complaint is an
improper shotgun pleading. That Complaint alleges seventy-seven paragraphs of facts
about Defendants’ wrongful conduct in connection with the sale of “life settlements.”
See DE 16 at 5-39. But the claims pleaded by Plaintiffs are far more broad and cursory.
Instead of referring to particular facts (or even discrete groups of facts) that support the
various elements of their claims, Plaintiffs refer to all their allegations collectively.
For example, the main paragraph of Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty states,
A fiduciary relationship existed between LPI and
Plaintiffs. All of the acts and omissions, wrongful conduct,
misrepresentations and fraudulent omissions described in
this petition constituted a breach of this fiduciary duty on the
part of LPI which caused injury or damages to Plaintiffs for
which Plaintiffs hereby sue. All of the allegations set forth in
this petition are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth here, all in support of
Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claims. LPI continue[s] to
breach these fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiffs.
Most of Plaintiffs’ other claims are pleaded in a similar fashion. While certain facts
alleged earlier in the Complaint may support Plaintiffs’ claims, few of those particular
facts are identified. This makes it unduly burdensome for Defendants and the Court to
discern the specific basis of Plaintiffs’ claims against each Defendant. The Court will
therefore require Plaintiffs to replead their Complaint, clearly identifying the alleged facts
that support each of their claims. Accordingly, it is hereby
2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

To the extent Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is an
impermissible shotgun pleading, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint [DE 20] is GRANTED. Otherwise, the Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED AS MOOT;

2.

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [DE 16] is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE;

3.

Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order by
January 16, 2015;

4.

Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint by
February 6, 2015; and

5.

The Motion Hearing scheduled for December 19, 2014, is CANCELLED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,

Florida, this 17th day of December, 2014.

Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF

3