v. Bator

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00668
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

ZITA BATOR,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:25-cv-668-MMH-MCR

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

Defendant. /

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing her Complaint for Quiet Title, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1; Complaint) on June 16, 2025. Upon review, the Court finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” In Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015), the Eleventh Circuit identified four types of “shotgun” pleadings. See id. at 1321–23. Relevant here, one such type of improper pleading occurs where the complaint 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 id. at 1321 & n.11 (collecting cases). 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 Counts II, III, and IV of the Complaint, Plaintiff incorporates by reference “all

preceding paragraphs.” See Complaint ¶¶ 31, 52, 55. This manner of pleading falls squarely into the first category of impermissible shotgun pleadings. See Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1325 (11th Cir. 2021) (describing the four 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 County, 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.” 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, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. (admonishing district court for not striking shotgun

complaint on its own 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.”).

In light of the foregoing, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to file a corrected complaint which corrects the shotgun nature of the Complaint.1 Before filing the corrected complaint, Plaintiff should review the typography

1 The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations are insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. For the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction, an unincorporated business association or entity, such as a general or limited partnership or a limited liability company, is not a “citizen” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) in its own right. See Xaros v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 820 F.2d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, “the citizenship of its members is determinative of the existence of diversity of citizenship.” Id. Therefore, in order to sufficiently allege the citizenship of an unincorporated business entity, a party must list the citizenships of all members of that entity. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Here, Defendant appears to be a limited liability company. See generally, Complaint. But Plaintiff only alleges Defendant’s place of incorporation and principal place of business. See id. ¶ 10. As such, the Court cannot determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff is encouraged to correct this deficiency in the corrected complaint. However, the Court will await the filing of the parties’ disclosure statements pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 3.03 before inquiring into this issue sua sponte. requirements set forth in Local Rule 1.08, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)). Future filings that do not comply with this or

any other Local Rule may be stricken. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN. 2. Plaintiff shall file a corrected complaint? consistent with the directives of this Order on or before July 7, 2025. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action. 3. Defendant shall respond to the corrected complaint in accordance with the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 20th day of June, 2025.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge

Le35

Copies to: Pro Se Party The filing of the corrected complaint does not affect any right Plaintiff may have to amend as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).