Summary
This federal district court order addresses the plaintiff's complaint as an impermissible "shotgun pleading" that fails to separate distinct causes of action into individual counts as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). The court strikes the original complaint and directs the plaintiff to file a corrected version by April 4, 2025, warning that failure to comply may result in dismissal. Additionally, the court denies the defendants' motion to dismiss count II as moot pending the amended filing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint violates Rule 10(b) by constituting a shotgun pleading that fails to separate distinct causes of action into separate counts.
- Whether the defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II is moot after the complaint is stricken.
Holdings
- The complaint is an improper shotgun pleading under Rule 10(b) because it combines multiple distinct negligence claims into one count; therefore the complaint must be stricken and the plaintiff must file a corrected complaint separating each claim.
- The motion to dismiss Count II is denied as moot because the complaint containing that count has been stricken.
Key quotations
“Rule 10(b) requires that: “[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count or defense.”” (at 1)
Factual background
The plaintiff’s complaint combined multiple negligence theories—failure to train, failure to supervise, negligent hiring, and negligent retention—into a single count.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a four‑count complaint in state court; defendants removed to this district court; the court found the complaint to be an impermissible shotgun pleading and ordered it stricken, directing a corrected complaint and denying the motion to dismiss as moot.
Remand instructions
Plaintiff must file a corrected complaint separating each distinct negligence claim into a separate count on or before April 4, 2025.