Bell v. Cross
8:16-cv-00961-JDW-AEP
M.D. Fla.Jul 19, 2019Background
- Relator Delia Bell filed a qui tam action (with the United States and State of Florida named) against multiple defendants alleging unspecified claims; Bell filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC).
- Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC (and one set alternatively to transfer venue), arguing pleading defects among other defenses.
- The Court reviewed the FAC under Rule 8 and the pleading standards of Twombly/Iqbal and related Eleventh Circuit authority.
- The Court concluded the FAC is a shotgun complaint: it incorporates prior paragraphs into each claim and fails to specify which defendant is responsible for which acts.
- Bell sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC); the Court found the proposed SAC still displayed shotgun characteristics but recognized the preference to allow amendment.
- The FAC was dismissed without prejudice; Bell was granted leave to file a SAC compliant with Rules 8(a), 9(b), and 11(b) within seven days, or the action would be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAC meets Rule 8(a) pleading standard | FAC sufficiently alleges claims and defendants’ liability (generally asserted) | FAC is a shotgun pleading failing to plead facts linking defendants to specific claims | Court: FAC is a shotgun pleading; dismissal warranted |
| Whether Court should grant leave to amend | Bell asked for leave to cure defects with SAC | Defendants sought dismissal (or other relief); argued pleading insufficient | Court: granted leave to amend but rejected proposed SAC as still shotgun; allowed repleader compliant with Rules 8(a), 9(b), 11(b) |
| Requirement to specify defendant-level allegations | Bell’s FAC used incorporations and grouped claims across multiple defendants | Defendants argued need for allegations tying acts to each defendant per Eleventh Circuit precedent | Court: agreed with defendants; FAC fails to specify which defendant committed which acts |
| Consequence of noncompliance with repleader order | Bell implicitly sought additional time to amend | Defendants argued dismissal appropriate without further delay | Court: dismissed FAC without prejudice and ordered Bell to file SAC within 7 days or face dismissal of action |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual content permitting reasonable inference of liability)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for federal complaints)
- Resnick v. AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2012) (labels and conclusions insufficient; apply Twombly/Iqbal)
- Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2014) (shotgun pleading makes it virtually impossible to know which facts support which claims)
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (multiple defendants/claims require specificity; shotgun pleading improper)
- Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2018) (discussing shotgun pleading standards)
- Friedlander v. Nims, 755 F.2d 810 (11th Cir. 1985) (district court should usually allow amendment when a better-pleaded complaint might state a claim)
- Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006) (proper remedy for shotgun pleadings is strike and replead)
- Anderson v. District Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364 (11th Cir. 1996) (early Eleventh Circuit recognition of shotgun pleading problems)