FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAY 18, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13041 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 1 4 9 5 - C V- F AM A I S H A G O O D I S O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s W A S H I N G T O N M U T U A L B A N K , L A W O F F I C E S O F M A R S H A L L C . W A T S O N , P .A ., M I C H E L L E E . O L E N N , S C O T T R . W E I S S , L A U R A M . C A R B O , F A B Y V A R G A S , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 18, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:In Bo nn er v. Ci ty of Pricha rd, 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1)(en b anc ), thi s 1 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981. 2 A i sha G oo di son app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdi sm i ss i ng , w i th p re j ud i ce , her thi rd am ended ci vi l com pl ai ntagai nstW as hi ng t on M utual B ank, the L aw O f f i c e s of M a r s ha l l C . W a t s on, the V i l l a ge of M i a m i S hor e s , the l a w f i rm of G e nove s e , J obl ove a nd B a tt i s t a , a nd s e ve r a l i ndi vi dua l de f e nda nt s , pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C iv . P . 4 1 ( b ) , b e c au s e s h e f a ile d to c o m p lyw ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rto c onf orm he ra m e nde d c om pl a i ntt o the r e qui r e m e nt s of F e d. R . C i v. P . 8( a ) a nd 1 0 ( b ) . W e a f

f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi s m i s s e d G oodi s on’ s thi r d c om pl a i ntbe c aus e : ( 1) s he f a ile d to m a k e m e a n in g f u l m o d if ic a tio n s to h e rc o m p la in t in o r d e rto c o m p lyw ith R ul e 8( a ) ( 2) ; a nd ( 2) s he c ont i nue d t o e m pl oya“ s hot gun appr oa c h” t o pl e a di ng, m a k in g it v irtu a llyim p o s s ib le f o rth e d e f

e n d a n ts to a n s w e r . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d is m is s in g G o o d is o n ’s c o m p la in t. G of or th v . O w e ns , 766 F . 2d 1533, 1535 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( s t a t i ng w e r e vi e w or de r s di s m i s s i ng com pl ai nt s bas ed on no n-com pl i ance for an abu se of di sc re t i on ). A di stri ctcourt m a ydi s m i s s a n a c t i on s u a s p o n te u n d e rF e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 ( b ) f o rf a ilu r e to p r o s e c u te o rf

a ilu r e to o b e yac o u rt o r d e r . F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 ( b ) ; Hi ldebran d v. H on ey w el l , Inc. , 622 F . 2d 179, 181 ( 5th C i r . 1980) . “ T he l e ga l s t a nda r d t o be 13

appl i e d unde rR ul e 41( b) i s w he the rthe r e i s a‘ c l e a rr e c or d of de l a yorw i l l f

ul cont em ptand a fi nd i ng thatl es se r s anct i on s w ou l d n otsuff i ce . ’ D i sm i ss al of a c a s e w ith p r e

ju d ic e is c o n s id e r e d as a n c tio n o f la s t r e s o rt, ap p lic ab le o n lyin extre m e c i rc um st ance s. ” G o fo r th , 76 6 F . 2d at15 35 (i nt ernal ci t at i on om i tt ed). E v e n th o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u rt in s tru c te d G o o d is o n to r e - d r a f t h e rc o m p la in t in o r d e rto m a k e it m o r e c o n c is e , h e rth ir d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t w a s ap p r o x im a te ly ei gh tpages l on ger than h erori gi nal 57 -page com pl ai nt . F urtherm ore, her thi rd a m e nde d c om pl a i nt , l i ke he ror i gi na l c om pl a i nt , c ont a i ne d m ul t i pl e pa ge s of irr e le v a n t f

a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s a n d r e d u n d a n t n a rr a tiv e s . See F e d. R . C i v. P . 8( a ) ( 2) ( r e qui r i ng apl e a di ng c ont a i n “ as horta nd pl a i n s t a t e m e ntof the c l a i m ” s how i ng th a t th e p le a d e ris e n title d to r e lie f ” ) . In addi t i on , as the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y not ed, i tw as i m po ss i bl e t o d i sc ern h o w th e d e f

e n d a n ts c o u ld a n s w e rG o o d is o n ’s c o m p la in t b e c au s e s h e r e p e a te d ly f a ile d to c o m p lyw ith R u le 1 0 ( b ) b ye n s u r in g th a t e a c h c o u n t s ta te d ale g a l b a s is f orthe c l a i m i ts e tf

orth. R ul e 10( b) r e qui r e s the a ve rm e nt s of ac l a i m “ s ha l l be m ade i n n um bere d p ar agraph s, the cont ent s of e ac h o f w hi ch shal l be l i m i t ed as far a s p r a c tic ab le to as ta te m e n t o f as in g le s e t o f

c ir c u m s ta n c e s . . . [ a n d ][ e ]a c h c la im f o u n d e d u p o n as e p a r a te tr a n s a c tio n o ro c c u rr e n c e . . . s h a ll b e s ta te d in as e p a r a te co u n t . ” F ed . R . C i v . P . 1 0 (b ). M o reo v er, G o o d i so n co n t i n u ed t o em p l o y a4

“ s hot gun” appr oa c h i n he rthi r d a m e nde d c om pl a i ntbyi nc l udi ng appr oxi m a t e l y 60 l egal and n on -l egal subh ea di ng s/ coun t s, and, i n sever al i nst ance s, she di d n oteven desi gn at e w hi ch “ defe nd ant s” she w as ac cusi ng . W e have det erm i ned that “s h o tg u n ” c o m p la in ts a r e n o t s u f f ic ie n t p le a d in g s , s ta tin g th a t: T he typi c a l s hot gun c om pl a i ntc ont a i n s seve r a l c ount s , e a c h one i nc orpor a t i ng byr e f

e r e nc e the a l l e ga t i ons of i t s pr e de c e s s or s , l e a di ng to as itu a tio n w h e r e m o s t o f th e c o u n ts ( i.e ., a ll b u t th e f ir s t) c o n ta in irr e le v a n t f

a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s a n d le g a l c o n c lu s io n s . C o n s e q u e n tly , in rul i ng on the s uf

f i c i e n cy o f a cl a i m , the tr i a l c ourtm us ts i f toutthe i rrel ev an ci es, a t askth atcan b e q u i t e o n ero u s. Str ategi c I

nc om e Fund, L . L . C . v . Spe ar, L e e ds & Ke l logg C or p. , 305 F . 3d 1293, 1295 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . I n s uc h c a s e s , i ti s i m port a ntf orac ourtt o “ na rr ow a nd defi ne the i ss ues f

rom the earl i es tst ages of the l i t i gat i on . ” E br ahi m iv . C i t yof H un t sv i l le B d. of

E du c. , 1 1 4 F . 3 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 5 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). “ A b sen tsu ch effo rt s, s h o tg u n n o tic e p le a d in g s . . . w o u ld im p e d e th e o r d e r ly , e f f ic ie n t, a n d e c o n o m ic di sposi t i on of di sput es . ” I d. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d i sm i ss i ng G oo di son’ s thi rd a m e nde d c om pl a i nt , pur s ua ntt o R ul e 41( b) , be c aus e G oodi s on m a de no m eani ng ful att em ptt o com pl y w i th the di stri ctcourt ’ s order s des pi t e bei ng gi ven mu l t i p l e o p p o rtu n i t i e s t o f i l e a me n d e d c o mp l a i n t s . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.