Court Opinion

ID: 9387616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 17:01:06.378053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:14.821197
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12037   Document: 18-1    Date Filed: 04/18/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12037
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       SOHAIL M. ABDULLA,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       SOUTHERN BANK,

                                                 Defendant-Appellee,

       SARDIS BANKSHARES, INC.,

                                                           Defendant.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12037        Document: 18-1         Date Filed: 04/18/2023        Page: 2 of 7

       2                         Opinion of the Court                      22-12037

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00099-JRH-BKE
                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Sohail Abdulla appeals the district court’s order granting
       Southern Bank’s motion to dismiss his pro se amended complaint,
       which raised breach-of-contract, accounting, and illegal-entry-into-
       a-safety-deposit-box claims. On appeal, he argues the district court
       erred by dismissing his complaint. After careful review, we affirm. 1
                                          I.
               On June 23, 2021, Abdulla filed his initial complaint against
       Southern Bank and its former holding company, Sardis Bankshares,
       Inc., alleging violations of several federal and state laws. Southern
       Bank and Sardis moved for a more definite statement and to dis-
       miss for numerous reasons, including failure to state a claim. The
       parties stipulated a dismissal of Sardis from the lawsuit. On January
       3, 2022, the district court granted the motion to dismiss as to the
       federal law claims for failure to state a claim, determining those
       statutes lacked a private cause of action. The district court then

       1 In its brief on appeal, Southern Bank asks us to sanction Abdulla pursuant to
       our Local Rule 25-6(a)(1) for arguing on appeal that Southern Bank lied in an
       affidavit below. We conclude that sanctions are not appropriate here.
USCA11 Case: 22-12037     Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 04/18/2023    Page: 3 of 7

       22-12037               Opinion of the Court                       3

       noted that the remainder of Abdulla’s initial complaint was a shot-
       gun pleading and gave him an opportunity to amend. The district
       court explained that Abdulla had to set forth each of his claims as
       separate claims, clearly allege the appropriate facts under each of
       his claims, state each claim plainly and succinctly without conclu-
       sory allegations, and eliminate extraneous material.
               On January 18, 2022, Abdulla filed his amended complaint,
       alleging diversity jurisdiction over his state law claims. Abdulla
       marshaled three counts: (1) breach of contract, (2) accounting, and
       (3) illegal entry into a safety deposit box. His breach-of-contract
       and accounting claims contained very little factual matter and con-
       clusory allegations. These two counts also incorporated his previ-
       ous sixty factual allegations, discussing various properties and the
       bank notes attached to each property and other actions allegedly
       taken by Southern Bank. The accounting claim also incorporated
       the allegations listed in his breach-of-contract claim. His third
       claim—illegal entry into a safety deposit box—contains only two
       paragraphs, one of which contains multiple allegations ranging
       from specific-and-detailed to conclusory. Abdulla also attached
       over 270 pages of exhibits. Southern Bank moved to dismiss for
       failure to state a claim or failure to comply with the Federal Rules
       of Civil Procedure and the court’s prior order.
             On May 10, 2022, the district court granted Southern Bank’s
       motion to dismiss, finding Abdulla’s amended complaint to be a
       shotgun pleading because (1) two of his claims incorporated all pre-
       ceding paragraphs; (2) the amended complaint contained
USCA11 Case: 22-12037      Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 04/18/2023     Page: 4 of 7

       4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-12037

       “conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts”; and (3) he failed to
       clearly describe the basis for each of his claims, specifically noting
       that because he referenced three different notes, it was hard to dis-
       cern what basis upon which his breach of contract claim rested.
       The district court also found that Abdulla willfully disobeyed its
       prior order by filing the amended complaint without correcting
       identified issues and that, for the above reasons, dismissal with prej-
       udice was an appropriate remedy. Abdulla timely appealed.
                                        II.
              Abdulla argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
       amended complaint for three reasons. First, he argues the district
       court erred in determining that his amended complaint was a shot-
       gun pleading. Second, the district court erred in finding that he
       willfully disobeyed the court’s prior order. Last, the district court
       erred in dismissing his state law claims with prejudice.
               First, we review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint as
       a shotgun pleading for abuse of discretion. Barmapov v. Amuial,
       986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). A complaint must contain “a
       short and plain statement of the claim” showing that the plaintiff is
       entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Further, claims should be
       stated “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable
       to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
             Shotgun pleadings include complaints that: (1) contain
       “multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all pre-
       ceding counts”; (2) are “replete with conclusory, vague, and
USCA11 Case: 22-12037     Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 04/18/2023    Page: 5 of 7

       22-12037               Opinion of the Court                        5

       immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of
       action”; (3) do not separate each cause of action or claim for relief
       into separate counts; or (4) assert “multiple claims against multiple
       defendants without specifying which of the defendants are respon-
       sible for which acts or omissions.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty.
       Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015). All of these
       types of shotgun pleadings are characterized by their failure “to
       give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and
       the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.
              Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dis-
       missing Abdulla’s amended complaint as a shotgun pleading. Ab-
       dulla’s amended complaint fits into two of the categories enumer-
       ated above. First, Abdulla incorporated his first count into his sec-
       ond count. Although we recognize that this may not be the most
       egregious manifestation of a shotgun pleading, our case law states
       that a complaint with many counts that incorporate all preceding
       counts is a shotgun complaint. See Ambrosia Coal & Constr. Co.
       v. Morales, 368 F.3d 1320, 1330–31 n.22 (11th Cir. 2004). Second,
       Abdulla’s amended complaint contains numerous conclusory,
       vague, and immaterial facts. For example, Abdulla discusses bids
       he made on foreclosed properties and the sale of those properties,
       including financing and down-payment information. He also in-
       cludes allegations about advice counsel allegedly gave to Southern
       Bank. Further, Abdulla’s breach-of-contract claim identifies
       breaches of multiple contracts in one breach of contract claim.
       While we recognize that Abdulla’s amended complaint is not the
USCA11 Case: 22-12037         Document: 18-1         Date Filed: 04/18/2023          Page: 6 of 7

       6                          Opinion of the Court                        22-12037

       most egregious shotgun pleading, it is nonetheless a shotgun plead-
       ing, and our review is confined to searching for an abuse of discre-
       tion.
               Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
       discretion by dismissing with prejudice Abdulla’s amended com-
       plaint as a shotgun pleading. 2 Having made this determination, we
       decline to further decide whether the court abused its discretion by
       dismissing Abdulla’s amended complaint with prejudice for violat-
       ing its prior order.
              Abdulla relied on our case in Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets,
       878 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) to argue that the district court should
       not have dismissed his state law claims—what amounted to, after
       the dismissal of his federal claims, his entire amended complaint.
       Vibe Micro is distinguishable from the case we face here, however.
       In Vibe Micro, we concluded that when a district court dismisses
       an entire action that includes pendant state claims, it should ordi-
       narily dismiss the pendant state claims without prejudice to that
       they may be refiled in the appropriate state court. Id. at 1296–97.

       2 It is true that “while this circuit’s shotgun-pleading rule applies to everyone,
       we ordinarily give pro se litigants more leeway when it comes to drafting.”
       Pinson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 942 F.3d 1200, 1208 (11th Cir.
       2019). However, like other litigants, if a pro se litigant files an amended com-
       plaint without substantially fixing the identified deficiencies in the original
       complaint, dismissal with prejudice may be warranted. See Jackson v. Bank of
       Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 2018). Here, the district court
       gave Abdulla another opportunity, and he failed to fix the deficiencies.
USCA11 Case: 22-12037      Document: 18-1       Date Filed: 04/18/2023     Page: 7 of 7

       22-12037                Opinion of the Court                          7

       Here, Abdulla’s case is distinguishable. Abdulla’s amended com-
       plaint contained no federal law claims, and he asserted diversity ju-
       risdiction as the basis for his claims being in federal court. His state
       law claims were not based on supplemental jurisdiction like in Vibe
       Micro.
            Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Abdulla’s
       amended complaint.
              AFFIRMED.