UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT MYERS DIVISION 

ANGELA KYLOCHKO, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No: 2:14-cv-196-FtM-29DNF 

BIOMET, INC., BIOMET 

ORTHOPEDICS, LLC, and BIOMET 

U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

ORDER 

 This matter comes before the Court on review of the Complaint 

(Doc. #1) filed on April 7, 2014.1

 Subject-matter jurisdiction is 

premised on the presence of diversity of jurisdiction between the 

parties. (Id., ¶ 14.) This requires complete diversity of 

citizenship, and that the matter in controversy exceed the sum or 

value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 

(11th Cir. 2000). 

The Court is satisfied that the amount in controversy likely 

exceeds $75,000 based on the factual allegations of injury. 

Plaintiff alleges that she is a citizen of Florida, and defendant 

 1 If the Court determines “at any time” that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the case. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 
2 

Biomet, Inc. is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of 

business in Indiana. (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 4, 5.) These allegations of 

citizenship are sufficient. 

Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Biomet Orthopedics, 

LLC is a subsidiary of defendant Biomet US Reconstruction, LLC 

(identified as a “corporation”), which is a subsidiary of defendant 

Biomet, Inc., an Indiana corporation with its principal place of 

business in Indiana. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 9.) Plaintiff does not identify 

the individual members of the limited liability companies, or their 

citizenship, and a limited liability company is a citizen of any 

state of which a member is a citizen. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. 

Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004). 

Therefore, the Court cannot determine the citizenship of 

defendants, or that diversity of jurisdiction is present. 

Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to state the presence of 

federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653. 

The Court notes that the Complaint incorporates by reference 

all of the allegations from each Count into each subsequent count. 

(Doc. #1, ¶¶ 67, 75, 82, 105, 115, 123, 130.) “The typical shotgun 

complaint contains several counts, each one incorporating by 

reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a 

situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) 

contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions.” 

Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 
3 

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). Plaintiff will be required to address this deficiency 

in amending the pleading. 

Accordingly, it is now 

ORDERED: 

The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction and as a shotgun pleading without prejudice to 

filing an Amended Complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this 

Order. 

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 8th day of 

April, 2014. 

Copies: Counsel of record