Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00303/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00303-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441pr Petition for Removal

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

DARREN NEESE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:13-cv-1588-J-34JRK

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,

LLC,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se,

initiated the instant action on November 8, 2013, by filing a seven-count Verified Complaint

(Doc. No. 2; Complaint) in the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia

County, Florida. Defendant filed Defendant’s Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1; Notice) on

December 23, 2013, removing the case on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § § 1441(a) and 1446. Upon review, the Court finds that the Complaint

constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” A shotgun complaint “contains several

counts, each one incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to

a situation where most of the counts . . . 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). Consequently, in ruling on the sufficiency of a claim, the Court

is faced with the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies in order to decide for itself which

facts are relevant to a particular cause of action asserted. See id. Here, each subsequent

Case 3:14-cv-00303-JAH-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/03/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
count of the seven counts in the Complaint incorporates by reference all of the allegations

of the preceding counts. See generally Complaint. 

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

County, 573 F.3d 1143, 1151 (11th Cir. 2009) (“We have had much to say about shotgun

pleadings, none of which is favorable.”) (collecting cases). As the Court in Cramer

recognized, “[s]hotgun pleadings, whether filed by plaintiff or defendants, 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.” Cramer, 117 F.3d at 1263. When faced with the extreme 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, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See id. (admonishing district court for not striking shotgun complaint on its own

initiative); see also United States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350, 1354 n.6 (11th

Cir. 2006) (“When faced with a shotgun pleading, the trial court, whether or not requested

to do so by a party’s adversary, ought to require the party to file a repleader.”) (citing Byrne

v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1133 (11th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds as recognized

by Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146, 1151-52 (11th Cir. 2011)). 

Accordingly, because the instant Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading, the Court

will strike it and allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.1

1

 The Court notes that the footnotes in Plaintiff’s Complaint are illegible. Therefore, the Court

also directs Plaintiff to ensure that all text in the amended complaint and any subsequent filings is clear

and legible.

-2-

Case 3:14-cv-00303-JAH-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/03/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is STRICKEN.

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this

Order on or before February 5, 2014. Failure to do so may result in a

dismissal of this action.

3. Defendant shall respond to the amended complaint in accordance with the

requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers on December 31, 2013.

lc18

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Pro se party

-3-

Case 3:14-cv-00303-JAH-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/03/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3