Price v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, 2:19-cv-00655

Pro se plaintiff Gregory C. Price filed suit in Florida state court on July 19, 2019 against Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC alleging breach of contract, fraud, RICO, lack of jurisdiction, and financial discrimination. The case was removed to federal court on September 6, 2019.
Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint is a shotgun pleading, service of process was defective, and the claims fail to state a cause of action.
The Return of Service showed service on Assistant General Counsel Antonio Chimiente on August 19, 2019; Lakeview’s registered agent is Brian E. Bomstein. Plaintiff conceded Chimiente was not the registered agent and offered no adequate explanation for not serving the registered agent.
Florida law (Fla. Stat. §48.062) requires strict compliance for service on an LLC; the plaintiff bears the burden to prove proper service.
The Court concluded the Complaint is a shotgun pleading and quashed service of process; it dismissed the Complaint without prejudice but granted leave to amend with specified deadlines for filing and service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Complaint is a shotgun pleading	Price contends his pro se complaint states claims and should be liberally construed	Lakeview contends the complaint lacks numbered paragraphs, fails to tie facts to counts, and contains incoherent allegations	Court: Complaint is a shotgun pleading; dismissed without prejudice and leave to amend granted
Whether service of process was sufficient	Price asserts he served the company (via Chimiente) and claims reasonable diligence	Lakeview argues service on Chimiente did not comply with Fla. Stat. §48.062 because he is not the registered agent	Court: Service was defective and quashed; plaintiff failed to carry burden of proving proper service
Whether the claims state a legally sufficient cause of action	Price alleges unlawful demand on a debt and other substantive claims	Lakeview argues the claims are legally insufficient	Court: Did not reach merits because pleading defect (shotgun) controls dismissal
Appropriate remedial procedure and timing	Price implicitly seeks to proceed with his claims	Lakeview sought dismissal	Court: Dismissal without prejudice; Price may file an amended complaint within 14 days and must effect service under federal rules within 60 days of filing any amended complaint

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must contain factual allegations sufficient for plausibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions unsupported by facts are not entitled to be presumed true)
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (defines categories of shotgun pleadings and rejects them)
Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2018) (encourages striking shotgun pleadings and permitting repleading when appropriate)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Usatorres v. Marina Mercante Nicaraguenses, S.A., 768 F.2d 1285 (11th Cir. 1985) (sufficiency of process after removal governed by state law)
Brown v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 117 So. 3d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (strict compliance with service statutes required; defective service must be quashed)
Schupak v. Sutton Hill Assocs., 710 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (Florida requires strict compliance with service statutes)