Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation v. Newtongen, Inc., Richard Scarpelli, and Gary Lufkin

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-02891
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DASSAULT SYSTÈMES SOLIDWORKS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-2891-CEH-AAS

NEWTONGEN, INC., RICHARD SCARPELLI, and GARY LUFKIN,

Defendants.

ORDER This cause comes before the Court sua sponte. In this action, Plaintiff Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation alleges violations of United States copyright law and Massachusetts contract law. Doc. 1. For the reasons articulated below, the complaint constitutes a shotgun pleading. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint and grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. DISCUSSION Complaints that violate either Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are often referred to as “shotgun pleadings.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). Ultimately, “[t]he unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail to one degree or another, and in one way or another, to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323; see Lampkin-Asam v. Volusia Cnty. Sch. Bd., 261 F. App’x 274, 277 (11th Cir. 2008) (“A complaint that fails to articulate claims with sufficient clarity to allow the defendant to frame a responsive pleading constitutes a ‘shotgun pleading.’”). The Eleventh Circuit has identified four

general types of shotgun pleadings. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321. Relevant here, “a complaint 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” constitutes the first of the four recognized types of shotgun pleadings. Id.

When faced with a shotgun pleading, a court should strike the complaint and instruct the plaintiff to file a more definite statement. See Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 984 (11th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases), abrogated on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The Eleventh Circuit repeatedly condemns the

use of shotgun pleadings for “imped[ing] the administration of the district courts’ civil dockets.” PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay Beach Constr., N.V., 598 F.3d 802, 806 n.4 (11th Cir. 2010). Shotgun pleadings require the district court to sift through allegations in an attempt to separate the meritorious claims from the unmeritorious, resulting in a “massive waste of judicial and private resources.” Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted). Thus, the Eleventh Circuit has established that a shotgun pleading is an unacceptable form of pleading. Here, Count II and Count III incorporate all preceding counts, such that Count II realleges every allegation stated in Count I, and Count III includes a recitation of Count I and Count II. Doc. 1. Therefore, the Complaint constitutes a shotgun pleading. While it is not wholly impermissible to re-allege general facts and allegations that are pertinent to the current count, Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each allegation is relevant and applicable to the count under which it is alleged’. The Court will dismiss the complaint and grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint which conforms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida. In filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff must avoid shotgun pleading pitfalls and comply with applicable pleading requirements. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. 2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this order, which must correct the deficiency discussed herein. Failure to file an amended complaint within the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action, without prejudice, without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 7, 2025.

Chal tre t awards No Tsp ped 0. Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

' For instance, Count III alleges a Massachusetts state law cause of action, but it incorporates 157 preceding paragraphs that concern violations of federal copyright law.