UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

WILLIAM DUTTER and ELSIE HARRIS,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 3:14-cv-428-J-34PDB

BIOMET, INC.; BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS,

LLC; BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION,

LLC; BIOMET MANUFACTURING, LLC F/K/A

BIOMET MANUFACTURING CORP.,

Defendants.

_____________________________

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs initiated the instant action on

April 14, 2014, by filing a nine-count Complaint. See Civil Complaint and Demand for Jury

Trial (Doc. No. 1; Complaint). 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 count in the Complaint

incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding counts. See Complaint at 16, 18,

19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28.
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 defendant, 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 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 (11th Cir. 2011)).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Civil Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. No. 1) is STRICKEN.

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

Order on or before May 15, 2014. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal

of this action.

-2-
3. Defendants 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 Jacksonville, Florida, this 16th day of April, 2014.

lc18

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

-3-