Federal cases criticizing shotgun pleadings in civil complaints

Federal Cases

The term courts commonly use is “shotgun pleading.” The leading case is:

“The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail . . . to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.”[2]

Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015). The court identified four recurring forms:

1. Each count incorporates every preceding allegation and count.
2. The complaint contains conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not tied to a particular claim.
3. Multiple causes of action are improperly combined in one count.
4. Multiple defendants are lumped together without identifying who allegedly did what.

The Eleventh Circuit has described such pleadings as making it “virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” Anderson v. District Board of Trustees of Central Florida Community College, 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996).[2]

Third Circuit Authority

The Third Circuit likewise condemns this practice. In Hynson ex rel. Hynson v. City of Chester Legal Department, 864 F.2d 1026, 1031 n.13 (3d Cir. 1988), the court recognized the problem of pleadings that obscure the claims and factual basis asserted.

A recent Middle District of Pennsylvania decision summarized the governing standard:

“Shotgun pleadings ‘fail, in one way or another, to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.’”[1]

See Bartol v. Barrowclough, 251 F. Supp. 3d 855, 859 (E.D. Pa. 2017). The court explained that Rules 8 and 10 require claims to be stated clearly, in numbered paragraphs, with separate counts when doing so promotes clarity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).[1]

Useful Quotation for a Brief

You could write:

Courts routinely reject “shotgun pleadings”—complaints that assert multiple theories, claims, or defendants without identifying which facts support which claim or which defendant allegedly committed which act. Such pleadings are improper because they force the opposing party and the court to guess “what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015); Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 92 (3d Cir. 2019).[1][2]

The caveat is that poor organization alone is not always enough. A court generally must determine whether the complaint actually prevents the defendant from understanding the claims and the factual grounds supporting them.[1]