Because the Complaint constitutes an improper shotgun pleading, it will be dismissed without prejudice. See Ditto v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 234 F. Supp. 3d 1217, 1220 n.2 (S.D. Fla. 2017) ("Plaintiff incorporated each of the allegations in Count I into Count II—a classic example of shotgun pleading. . . . Even if Count II could survive in the absence of Count I, the Court would nevertheless be required to dismiss Count II without prejudice as an improper shotgun pleading."); zIT Consulting GmbH v. BMC Software, Inc., 2016 WL 231215, *2 n.3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2016) (noting that the court was obligated to dismiss a shotgun pleading sua sponte); see also Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) ("In the special circumstance of non-merits dismissals on shotgun pleading grounds, we have required district courts to sua sponte allow a litigant one chance to remedy such deficiencies."). Given the Court's determination on this issue, defendants' arguments will be denied without prejudice.
Because Regulation X contains a separate section to regulate the mortgage modification process, loan modification information does not properly fall within Regulation X's definition of an RFI. SeeDitto v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. , No. 16-81017-CIV, 234 F.Supp.3d 1217, 1220, 2017 WL 213969, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2017) (collecting cases and agreeing "with the[ir] reasoning and conclusions ... [and holding] that a request for loan modification information does not trigger an obligation to respond by operation of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(B) and 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(1)"). The Tanasis' claims under 12 C.F.R. 1024.36 are dismissed to the extent that the alleged requests for information concerned loan modification programs.