ZELINSKI

v.

SHURWEST, LLC

and SHURWEST, LLC,

Defendants. /

OPINION AND ORDER1

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandums of Law filed on May 15, 2020 and May 27, 2020. (Docs. 54; 57). Plaintiffs timely responded to Defendants’ motions. (Docs. 58; 59). For the following reasons, the motions are granted. This action arises out of the sale of an illegal investment scheme involving the wrongful conduct of several parties. (Doc. 50). Plaintiffs maintain Defendants, individually and collectively, fraudulently induced them to liquidate their life savings in the amount of $2.7 million and purchase unregistered securities to fund a several milliondollar life insurance policy. (Id. at ¶ 2). Defendants negligently failed to inform and warn

Now, Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Docs. 54; 57). They argue dismissal is warranted because (1) the Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading, (2) Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), (3) Plaintiffs fail to state claim for professional negligence under Counts V and VI, and (4) Counts V and VI are duplicative. While the Court is not persuaded by all of Defendants’ arguments, their contention that the Amended Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading carries the day.²

of Trustees of Cent. Fla. Cmty. College, 77 F. 3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). While the Eleventh Circuit has identified four types of shotgun pleadings, only one of which is at issue here. See Weiland, 792 F. 3d at 1322-23. Specifically, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is the fourth shotgun pleading identified in Weiland, 792 F. 3d at 1323. This shotgun pleading is one 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.” Id. The Amended Complaint is a quintessential shotgun pleading. Here, each count fails to identify which Defendant it applies to and specify which material facts supports each claim. While the Amended Complaint contains over 100 general factual allegations, Plaintiffs only provide a few barebone statements setting forth the elements for each cause of action. As written under each count, it is unclear how Defendants are liable. The Amended Complaint is thus insufficient to put Defendants on notice of the claims against them. Plaintiffs defend their style of pleading by arguing the collective allegations against Defendants under each count are sufficient because Defendants are not only liable agrees. Should Plaintiffs wish to file a Second Amended Complaint, they are directed to provide a more clear and concise pleading. individually but also on an agency theory. (Docs. 58 at 5-12; 59 at 5-10). In support, they point to Amin v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 349 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2018). In Amin, defendants argued the complaint constituted a shotgun pleading because plaintiffs failed to separately assert the claims against them. See id. at 1348-1352. The court found the complaint did not constitute a shotgun pleading, in part, because it could be fairly read to allege that both defendants were responsible for the conduct based on an agency theory. See id. at 1353. The Court has reviewed the complaint in Amin. Although long, it clearly stated which counts were against each defendant and provided the facts under every count to show how each defendant was liable. This is not the case here. Unlike the complaint in Amin, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint makes it “virtually impossible” for each defendant to know “which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” Weiland, 792 F. 3d at 1325. Plaintiffs fail to state what each Defendant is alleged to have done in each count. Considering the complicated relationships between the Defendants and different theories of liability, the combining of the Defendants in each count with vague allegations fails to put Defendants on notice. Plaintiffs must replead. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Defendants Securian Financial Group, Inc. and Minnesota Life Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 54) and Defendants’ Edie A. Jarvis and Jarvis Financial, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 57) are GRANTED to the extent that the Amended Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading. 2. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 50) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint on or before July², 2020. Failure to file a timely amended pleading will cause the closure of this case without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 17th day of June, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record