Karun N. Jackson v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
898 F.3d 1348
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Karun and Ursula Jackson sued Bank of America, Specialized Loan Servicing (SLS), Bank of New York Mellon (Mellon), and MERS one day after a January 11, 2016 foreclosure sale of their home, alleging 14 (later 16) largely boilerplate counts (state torts and multiple federal statutes) and seeking declaratory relief that would undo the sale.
- The original complaint was a "shotgun" pleading: many counts incorporated nearly all preceding paragraphs, did not tie allegations to specific defendants, and omitted key particulars, making a responsive answer impracticable.
- Defendants removed to federal court and moved for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e); the Jacksons did not oppose and were ordered to file an amended complaint.
- The amended complaint remained a shotgun pleading (expanded to 16 counts), and defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Magistrate Judge issued a lengthy Report & Recommendation dismissing all claims as legally insufficient; the District Court adopted the R&R and dismissed with prejudice.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal but on alternative grounds: the amended complaint was an incomprehensible shotgun pleading that obstructed court administration and justified dismissal with prejudice; the court also found the appeal frivolous and ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions (double costs and fees) should not be imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of pleadings under Rule 8/Iqbal-Twombly | Jacksons argued their amended complaint pleaded multiple state and federal claims and alleged facts supporting relief (e.g., misapplied payments, wrongful acceleration, false credit reporting). | Defendants argued the complaint was a shotgun pleading that failed to give short, plain, specific statements linking facts to each claim and each defendant, warranting a more definite statement or dismissal. | Court held the amended complaint was an incomprehensible shotgun pleading violating Rule 8; dismissal with prejudice was affirmable because plaintiffs had been given opportunity to replead but filed the same defective pleading. |
| Proper remedy for repeated shotgun pleadings after order to replead | Jacksons implicitly argued their amended complaint was sufficient. | Defendants argued dismissal with prejudice was appropriate after plaintiffs failed to cure defects despite being ordered to replead. | Court held district courts may dismiss with prejudice when plaintiff fails to cure shotgun pleading after notice and opportunity; dismissal here was affirmable on that ground. |
| Whether the district court erred by addressing merits instead of striking the pleading | Jacksons contended merits review was acceptable. | Defendants noted the court should have struck or ordered repleader and then dismissed for failure to obey. | Court found it was not an abuse of discretion to dismiss with prejudice given plaintiffs’ non-opposition to motion for definite statement and failure to cure; affirmance on alternative ground allowed. |
| Frivolousness of appeal / sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38 | Jacksons (counsel) prosecuted appeal and sought numerous extensions, arguing diligence despite personal issues. | Defendants argued the appeal was frivolous because controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent condemns shotgun pleadings and plaintiffs persisted to delay foreclosure. | Court held the appeal was frivolous given counsel’s repeated prosecution of an incomprehensible shotgun pleading and delay tactics; ordered counsel to show cause why double costs and fees should not be awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Koziara v. City of Casselberry, 392 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2004) (appellate courts may affirm on any supported ground)
- Cramer v. Florida, 117 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 1997) (condemning shotgun pleadings and their toll on court resources)
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (district courts may dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2))
- Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) (procedures for striking shotgun pleadings and allowing repleader; courts should identify defects when ordering repleader)
- Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075 (11th Cir. 2001) (discussing striking pleadings, repleading, and sanctioning for repeated deficiencies)
- Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1991) (sanctions appropriate where claims pursued to harass or without factual basis)