Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Igor Shabanets
878 F.3d 1291
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Edward Mandel (and related entities) filed lengthy complaints alleging breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and RICO violations after an alleged scheme to remove him from a corporate board.
- Original complaint (49 pages + 109 pages exhibits) was amended as of right to a First Amended Complaint (FAC) that grew to 56 pages + 168 pages exhibits.
- The FAC was dismissed without prejudice under Rule 8 as a shotgun pleading; the district court gave detailed, sua sponte instructions and allowed Mandel one opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).
- The SAC (70 pages + 160 pages exhibits) remained a shotgun pleading—duplicative, incoherent, and not tying allegations to specific defendants—and Mandel did not request leave to amend.
- The district court dismissed the SAC with prejudice on Rule 8 shotgun-pleading grounds. Mandel appealed, arguing dismissal with prejudice requires a finding of bad faith and that he should get another chance to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice for a shotgun pleading requires a finding of bad faith | Mandel: Court cannot dismiss with prejudice for Rule 8 shotgun pleading unless bad faith is shown; he was entitled to another chance | Defendants: District court may dismiss with prejudice after giving one sua sponte chance when plaintiff (with counsel) fails to cure and does not request leave to amend | Court: No bad-faith finding required; dismissal with prejudice is permissible after one sua sponte repleading opportunity when plaintiff (represented by counsel) fails to cure and did not request leave to amend |
| Whether a district court must sua sponte grant additional leave to amend when counsel never requested leave | Mandel: He should get at least one more opportunity to replead | Defendants: Daewoo and related precedent allow dismissal after the one sua sponte chance if plaintiff (with counsel) neither files a compliant pleading nor requests leave | Court: District court must give one sua sponte chance to replead (Byrne line); after that, Daewoo permits dismissal with prejudice if counsel never sought leave to amend |
| Whether district court should retain or dismiss state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed on non-merits grounds | Mandel: (implicit) wants case to continue in federal court | Defendants: District court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where federal claims are dismissed before trial | Court: Generally decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state claims without prejudice to refiling in state court; remanded to clarify dismissal of state-law claims should be without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (defines shotgun pleadings and affirms dismissal authority)
- Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006) (discusses repleading requirement for shotgun pleadings)
- Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075 (11th Cir. 2001) (requires one sua sponte repleading opportunity)
- Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (denounces shotgun pleadings)
- Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955 (11th Cir. 2008) (explains harms of shotgun pleadings and need for firm control)
- Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp. v. Wagner, 314 F.3d 541 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (counsels that district court need not sua sponte grant leave when counsel never requests amendment)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1966) (pendant jurisdiction principles)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1988) (factors guiding exercise of pendent/supplemental jurisdiction)
- Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 1999) (dismissal of state claims usually without prejudice when federal claims are eliminated before trial)