WALKER
v.
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A federal district court granted in part a motion to dismiss in this civil case, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint as a shotgun pleading without prejudice and ordering the plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 21 days. The court stayed all remaining proceedings, including discovery, pending the filing and response to the amended complaint.
The court granted the motion to dismiss in part, finding the complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissing it without prejudice. The court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice in all other respects and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days.
[1] A complaint may be dismissed without prejudice as a shotgun pleading.
[2] A court may grant a motion to dismiss in part and deny it in part.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Plaintiffs' complaint (Doc. No. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as a shotgun pleading”
Establishes the primary ruling that the complaint fails to meet federal pleading standards for specificity and clarity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed a complaint against Dismas Charities, Inc. and Stephen Ricks. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court held a pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Shotgun Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court upon consent of the parties to the undersigned's jurisdiction and the IDEAL Program, Doc. Nos. 21, 23-24, and following a preliminary pretrial conference, Doc. Nos. 25-26. At the conference, the Court discussed with the parties Defendants' pending motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 13), Plaintiffs' response, which includes an embedded request for leave to amend (Doc. No. 22), the complaint (Doc. No. 1-1), and proceedings related thereto. Doc. No. 26. For the reasons stated on the record at the conference, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED in part, to the extent that Plaintiffs' complaint (Doc. No. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F. 3d 1313, 1320–23 (11th Cir. 2015). The motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice in all other respects.
2. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint in accordance with the discussion had with Plaintiffs at the conference.
3. Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of its filing.
4. Pending Defendants' response to the forthcoming amended complaint, all remaining aspects of this case, including discovery, are hereby STAYED until further Order from the Court. Upon the filing of Defendants' response, the Court will set this matter for further proceedings, as appropriate.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 10, 2025.
Uslis Heran Price LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015)