Opinion
Case No: 2:15-cv-136-FtM-29MRM
09-17-2015
JOHN SHORT, Plaintiff, v. IMMOKALEE WATER & SEWER DISTRICT, as a govern entity, EVA J. DEYO, in her individual capacity as executive director of Immokalee Water & Sewer District, and FRED N. THOMAS, JR. , in his individual capacity as board member of Immokalee water & sewer district, Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. #30) filed on June 18, 2015. The Amended Complaint incorporates by reference all of the allegations from each Count into each subsequent count. (Doc. #30, ¶¶ 91, 103, 107, 112, 116, 122, 127.)
On June 4, 2015, the Court entered an Order dismissing plaintiff's original Complaint as a shotgun pleading. (Doc. #24.) --------
A shotgun pleading is a pleading that "incorporate[s] every antecedent allegation by reference into each subsequent claim for relief or affirmative defense." Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th Cir. 2006). As a result, most of the counts in a typical shotgun complaint "contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions." Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). The Eleventh Circuit has consistently frowned upon shotgun pleadings such as the one presented herein, and shotgun pleadings "exact an intolerable toll on the trial court's docket." Cramer v. Florida, 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997). See also Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 979 n.54 (11th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit has established that when faced with a shotgun pleading, a district court should require the parties to file an amended pleading rather than allow such a case to proceed to trial. Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1130 (11th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. #30) is dismissed without prejudice to filing a Second Amended Complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order.
2. Defendant Immokalee Water & Sewer District's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Strike Plaintiff's Claims for Punitive Damages (Doc. #31) is DENIED as moot.
3. Defendant Fred N. Thomas, Jr.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. #32) is DENIED as moot.
4. Defendant Eva Deyo's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Strike Plaintiff's Claims for Punitive Damages and Attorney's Fees (Doc. #33) is DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 17th day of September, 2015.
/s/_________
JOHN E. STEELE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: Counsel of record