The result is that each “count” is essentially a recitation of the entire the complaint, which foists upon the Court “the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies in order to decide for itself which facts are relevant to a particular cause of action asserted.” Brantley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189511, *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2023) (citing Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 205 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002)). While this deficiency alone would likely not be conclusive to the undersigned's ultimate recommendation, a type-one shotgun pleading is “[t]he most common type -by a long shot,” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321, and each moment spent attempting to construe a shotgun pleading is one less spent on other matters waiting to be heard by the Court. See Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1130-31 (11th Cir. 2001) (describing negative effects of shotgun pleadings and their burden on the prompt administration of justice); Strategic Income Fund, 305 F.3d at 1295 n.10 (noting, with examples, the “great concern” posed by the aggregate negative effects of shotgun pleading).