Benny Barmapov v. Guy Amuial
986 F.3d 1321
| 11th Cir. | 2021Background
- Plaintiff Benny Barmapov filed an initial complaint and a 116‑page first amended complaint alleging multiple state and federal claims against many defendants; the district court dismissed it as a shotgun pleading and granted leave to amend.
- Barmapov filed a 92‑page second amended complaint (16 named defendants, 19 counts) that removed federal claims but incorporated hundreds of paragraphs across many counts.
- The district court found the second amended complaint still failed to provide a short, plain, and intelligible statement: it lumped defendants, incorporated immaterial and irrelevant allegations into multiple counts, and used vague/conclusory assertions.
- After prior warning and an opportunity to replead, the district court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice as a shotgun pleading.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding that the pleading fell into the second category of shotgun pleadings (replete with conclusory, vague, immaterial facts) and that dismissal with prejudice was proper given counsel’s repeated failures to correct defects.
- Judge Tjoflat concurred: he reiterated the allocation of responsibilities among plaintiff’s counsel, district courts, and defense counsel, observed that one claim (a fraud count) might survive 12(b)(6) on the merits, but agreed dismissal was required under the shotgun‑pleading precedent because counsel had been warned and failed to remedy the defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice of the second amended complaint as a shotgun pleading was an abuse of discretion | Barmapov: dismissal was an abuse; the second amended complaint narrowed issues and should not have been dismissed with prejudice | Defendants/District Ct: plaintiff was warned, given leave, refiled a rambling, incomprehensible pleading that still violated Rules 8 and 10; dismissal with prejudice appropriate | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; dismissal with prejudice proper after repeated failures to cure |
| Whether the second amended complaint qualified as a shotgun pleading and which category applied | Barmapov: complaint sufficiently narrowed defendants and claims; not a shotgun pleading | Court: complaint contained numerous immaterial, vague, conclusory facts and mass incorporations—fits the second category of shotgun pleadings | Held: complaint falls into second category (replete with conclusory, vague, immaterial facts) |
| Whether the court should have parsed pleadings to preserve potentially viable claims (e.g., fraud count) | Barmapov: court should identify and allow viable claims to proceed | Court/defendants: courts must not craft claims for plaintiff; plaintiff had opportunity to replead but failed; district court not required to parse a shotgun pleading | Held: court properly declined to recompose claims; dismissal consistent with precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) (review standard and requirement to give one chance to replead before prejudice when shotgun pleading and counsel represented)
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (defines shotgun pleadings and describes four categories)
- T.D.S. Inc. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 760 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1985) (dissent) (explains purpose of Rules 8 and 10: discrete, succinct claims so adversary and court can respond)
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (example of shotgun pleading where counts incorporate all factual paragraphs)
- Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2018) (courts must not appear to be "lawyering" for a party; ordering a more definite statement can supply the required notice)
- Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2014) (distinguishes when a vague complaint should be ordered more definite vs. dismissed for failure to state a claim)
- Johnson Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 162 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 1998) (district courts’ duty to define issues early and order repleading to avoid aimless discovery)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards require more than conclusory allegations)