Sullivan v. Nassau County

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

LORRAINE HUTCHINSON SULLIVAN, as administrator for the ESTATE OF JARVIS SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:22-cv-267-MMH-PDB

NASSAU COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. /

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated the instant action on March 10, 2022, by filing a three-count complaint. See Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (Doc. 1; Complaint). Upon review, the Court finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” One category of “shotgun pleading” contains “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.” See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 & n.11 (11th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases).1 As a result, “most of the counts . . . contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions.” Strategic

Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellog Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). Consequently, in ruling on the sufficiency of a claim, the Court is faced with the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies in order to decide for itself which facts are relevant to a particular cause of action asserted. See id.

Here, in each count of the Complaint, Plaintiff “incorporate[s] all preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.” See Complaint at 7-8.2 This manner of pleading falls squarely into the first category of impermissible shotgun pleadings. See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1325 (11th Cir. 2021) (describing the four

1 In Weiland, the Eleventh Circuit “identified four rough types or categories of shotgun pleadings.” See Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324–25 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321). As the Barmapov court explained, The first [category] is “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.” The second is a complaint “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action.” The third is a complaint that does not separate “each cause of action or claim for relief” into a different count. And the final type of shotgun pleading is a complaint that “assert[s] multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought against.” Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324–25 (quoting Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–23). 2 The Court notes that the Complaint also contains significant numbering errors in that two of the three Counts are labeled “Count I” and the paragraph numbers run from 1-51 and then revert back to 45. See Complaint at 6-8. Plaintiff should take care to correct these typographical errors in the corrected complaint. general categories of shotgun pleadings) (citing Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–23); see also Sarhan v. Miami Dade Coll., 800 F. App’x 769, 771–72 (11th Cir. 2020)

(same). In the Eleventh Circuit, shotgun pleadings of this sort are “altogether unacceptable.” Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Cook v. Randolph Cnty., 573 F.3d 1143, 1151 (11th Cir. 2009) (“We have

had much to say about shotgun pleadings, none of which is favorable.”) (collecting cases). Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has engaged in a “thirty-year salvo of criticism aimed at shotgun pleadings, and there is no ceasefire in sight.” See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321 & n.9 (collecting cases). As the Court in Cramer

recognized, “[s]hotgun pleadings, whether filed by plaintiff or defendant, exact an intolerable toll on the trial court’s docket, lead to unnecessary and unchanneled discovery, and impose unwarranted expense on the litigants, the court and the court’s parajudicial personnel and resources.”3 Cramer, 117 F.3d

at 1263. When faced with the burden of deciphering a shotgun pleading, it is the trial court’s obligation to strike the pleading on its own initiative and force the plaintiff to replead to the extent possible under Rule 11. See id. (admonishing district court for not striking shotgun complaint on its own

3 Moreover, as the Eleventh Circuit has recently reiterated, “[b]esides violating the rules, shotgun pleadings also . . . ‘wreak havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine respect for the courts.’” Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324 (citing Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018)). initiative); see also Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321 n.10 (“[W]e have also advised that when a defendant fails to [move for a more definite statement], the district court

ought to take the initiative to dismiss or strike the shotgun pleading and give the plaintiff an opportunity to replead.”). Additionally, the Court notes that the Complaint does not appear to comply with the new typography requirements set forth in the amended Local

Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)), which took effect on February 1, 2021. See Local Rule 1.08(a)-(b). As such, the Court directs all counsel of record in this case to review the requirements set forth in Local Rule 1.08 and ensure that all future filings are

in compliance with this and all other Local Rules.4 Going forward, filings which do not comply with this or any other Local Rule may be stricken. In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN.

4 The Court cautions counsel that the amended Local Rules contain numerous, significant changes. The parties should review the Local Rules and, to familiarize themselves with key changes, are encouraged to review the “Video Presentation on New Local Rules” available on the Middle District of Florida website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov/local-rules. 2. Plaintiff shall file a corrected complaint® consistent with the directives of this Order on or before March 29, 2022. Failure to do

so may result in a dismissal of this action. 3. Defendants shall respond to the corrected complaint in accordance with the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on March 15, 2022.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge

le11 Copies to: Counsel of Record

5 The filing of the corrected complaint does not affect any right Plaintiff may have to amend as a matter of course pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5-