SULLIVAN

v.

NASSAU COUNTY

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

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

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.