Russo v. Medicredit, Inc.
3:18-cv-00267
| M.D. Fla. | Feb 23, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Jonathon Russo filed a two-count complaint alleging claims against Medicredit, Inc. and others on February 20, 2018.
- Count II incorporated by reference all allegations of Count I, causing factual and legal overlap across counts.
- The complaint also named fictitious defendants “Does 1-10,” described only as individual collectors employed by MediCredit.
- The district court reviewed the pleading sua sponte and concluded it was a shotgun pleading that hindered clear adjudication and imposed burdens on the court and parties.
- The court struck the complaint and gave Russo leave to file an amended complaint by March 9, 2018, warning that failure to replead could result in dismissal.
- The court instructed that Doe defendants be omitted or described with sufficient specificity to permit identification for service of process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint is a shotgun pleading | Russo filed two counts but incorporated all prior allegations into Count II (no explicit defense pleaded) | Defendants had not yet responded; court evaluated pleading sufficiency sua sponte | Court held the complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading and struck it |
| Whether Doe defendants are permissible | Russo used Does 1–10 identified as MediCredit collectors | Defendants not addressed; court applied Eleventh Circuit precedent limiting Doe pleading | Court held fictitious-party pleading is generally impermissible; plaintiff must omit Does or provide specific identifying allegations to allow service |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (defines and critiques shotgun pleadings)
- Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 1997) (requires district courts to strike shotgun pleadings on their own initiative)
- Cook v. Randolph County, 573 F.3d 1143 (11th Cir. 2009) (criticizes shotgun pleadings and collects precedent)
- Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2002) (describes the practical problems caused by shotgun pleadings)
- Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210 (11th Cir. 1992) (recognizes limited exception allowing John Doe where description permits service)
- Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734 (11th Cir. 2010) (rejects Doe pleading where description is insufficient to identify defendant)