Gurman v. Metro Housing & Redevelopment Authority
842 F. Supp. 2d 1151
D. Minnesota2011Background
- This case arises from a housing dispute over whether elderly couples in Section 8 housing are entitled to a one- or two-bedroom apartment.
- Plaintiffs filed an unusually long, 60-page, 250-paragraph complaint that the court found not short or plain under Rule 8.
- The complaint asserts 17 claims against 13 defendants, including several public agencies and officials, with some unnamed parties involved.
- The court characterized the complaint as a “kitchen-sink” or shotgun pleading that burdened defendants and the court, and was not reasonably investigable or clearly pled.
- The court proposed dismissal under Rule 8 but stayed the dismissal to July 29, 2011, to allow a second amended complaint if plaintiffs cured pleading deficiencies.
- Guidance was given for a second amended complaint: limit to 10,000 words, present facts chronologically with specific parties, ensure evidentiary support, and avoid frivolous or misleading content.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint complies with Rule 8 and Rule 11 | Plaintiffs argue their claims are pleaded as presented against numerous defendants. | Defendants contend the complaint is not concise, clear, or legally viable under Rules 8 and 11. | Dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8. |
| Whether all 17 claims are warranted by law | Plaintiffs maintain some claims have merit and should proceed. | Defendants argue many claims are frivolous or unsupported by law against various defendants. | Court found many claims frivolous or unviable; dismissal without prejudice of the current complaint. |
| Whether the court should require a second amended complaint | Plaintiffs should be allowed to replead to pursue their claims. | Defendants contend that any further pleading must meet strict standards and clarity. | Second amended complaint required, but only if it meets Rule 8 and Rule 11; otherwise dismissal. |
| Whether Metro HRA certain allegations about fraud and benefit reductions are accurately pleaded | Plaintiffs allege ongoing fraud and discriminatory effects related to voucher denials. | Metro HRA argues it did not admit fraud and that findings show no such admission; benefits reductions are not clearly framed as deprivation. | Court notes misleading content and requires precise, supported allegations in a second amended complaint. |
| Whether the court should address procedural advocacy concerns in opposing motions | Plaintiffs may rely on their pleadings without extensive further briefing. | Defendants require reasoned analysis and citations addressing merits, not mere quotations. | If a second amended complaint is filed, opposition must brief on the merits with authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955 (11th Cir. 2008) (unacceptable shotgun pleading consequences)
- Powell v. I-Flow Corp., 711 F.Supp.2d 1012 (D.Minn. 2010) (court's concern with burden of improper complaints on court and taxpayers)
- Liggins v. Morris, 749 F.Supp.967 (D.Minn.1990) (court will dismiss complaints failing Rule 8 and Rule 11 when they identify many parties and counts)
- Bellecourt v. United States, 784 F.Supp. 623 (D.Minn.1992) (application of Liggins-like reasoning to pleading standards)
- Randall v. Lady of Am. Franchise Corp., 532 F.Supp.2d 1071 (D.Minn.2007) (illustrates pleading and factual specificity expectations in §1983 actions)