Shotgun Complaints
Often, Plaintiffs will file sweeping Complaints against numerous ( often hundreds) of defendants alleging sundry facts and not specifying which facts apply to which defendants. This is improper and is not challenged enough by defendants, particularly in Mass Tort litigation.
In Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001), the Eleventh Circuit expressed its vigorous disapproval of shotgun complaints:
"The complaint is a quintessential shotgun pleading of the kind we have condemned repeatedly, beginning at least as early as 1991. It is in no sense the “short and plain statement of the claim” required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is fifty-eight pages long. It names fourteen defendants, and all defendants are charged in each count. The complaint is replete with allegations that “the defendants” engaged in certain conduct, making no distinction among the fourteen defendants charged, though geographic and temporal realities make plain that all of the defendants could not have participated in every act complained of. Each count incorporates by reference the allegations made in a section entitled “General Factual Allegations” – which comprises 146 numbered paragraphs – while also incorporating the allegations of any count or counts that precede it. The result is that each count is replete with factual allegations that could not possible be material to that specific count, and that any allegations that are material are buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies. This type of pleading completely disregards Rule 10(b)’s requirement that discrete claims should be plead in separate counts, and is the type of complaint that we have criticized time and time again. (internal citations omitted)."
Id, at 1284.
See also Harold’s Auto Parts, Inc., et al. v. Flower Mangialardi, et al., 889 So. 2d. 493 (Miss. 2004). The Mississippi Supreme Court referred to asbestos shotgun complaint as “abuse of, and failure to comply with, Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 [of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure-- identical to the FRCP].” The Supreme Court insisted that each Complaint reflect sufficient information obtained by plaintiffs’ counsel to form a “good faith” basis that each plaintiff has a valid cause of action against each defendant in the jurisdiction in which the complaint was filed". The Mississippi Supreme Court, added: “to do otherwise is an abuse of the system, and is sanctionable.”
It is up to the defense bar to put a stop to the practice of Shotgun Complaints. When it is brought to their attention, judges often dismiss Shotgun Complaints.
In Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001), the Eleventh Circuit expressed its vigorous disapproval of shotgun complaints:
"The complaint is a quintessential shotgun pleading of the kind we have condemned repeatedly, beginning at least as early as 1991. It is in no sense the “short and plain statement of the claim” required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is fifty-eight pages long. It names fourteen defendants, and all defendants are charged in each count. The complaint is replete with allegations that “the defendants” engaged in certain conduct, making no distinction among the fourteen defendants charged, though geographic and temporal realities make plain that all of the defendants could not have participated in every act complained of. Each count incorporates by reference the allegations made in a section entitled “General Factual Allegations” – which comprises 146 numbered paragraphs – while also incorporating the allegations of any count or counts that precede it. The result is that each count is replete with factual allegations that could not possible be material to that specific count, and that any allegations that are material are buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies. This type of pleading completely disregards Rule 10(b)’s requirement that discrete claims should be plead in separate counts, and is the type of complaint that we have criticized time and time again. (internal citations omitted)."
Id, at 1284.
See also Harold’s Auto Parts, Inc., et al. v. Flower Mangialardi, et al., 889 So. 2d. 493 (Miss. 2004). The Mississippi Supreme Court referred to asbestos shotgun complaint as “abuse of, and failure to comply with, Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 [of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure-- identical to the FRCP].” The Supreme Court insisted that each Complaint reflect sufficient information obtained by plaintiffs’ counsel to form a “good faith” basis that each plaintiff has a valid cause of action against each defendant in the jurisdiction in which the complaint was filed". The Mississippi Supreme Court, added: “to do otherwise is an abuse of the system, and is sanctionable.”
It is up to the defense bar to put a stop to the practice of Shotgun Complaints. When it is brought to their attention, judges often dismiss Shotgun Complaints.
posted by Bob Redmond at 10:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home