AIN JEEM, INC.
v.
THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A

M.D. Fla. | 2021-07-13
No. 8:21-cv-1331
District Court, M.D. Florida (2021)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that Hall of Fame Sports Memorabilia, Inc.'s counterclaims were a shotgun pleading and dismissed them sua sponte.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Ain Jeem, Inc. initiated a trademark infringement action. Defendant Hall of Fame Sports Memorabilia, Inc. filed an answer and counterclaims …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant and Counterclaimant Hall of Fame Sports Memorabilia, Inc’s counterclaims (Doc. # 51) are dismissed as a shotgun pleading.

I. Background

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Ain Jeem, Inc., initiated this trademark infringement action against Defendants on June 1, 2021. (Doc. # 1).

On July 12, 2021, Hall of Fame filed its answer and counterclaims. (Doc. # 51). Hall of Fame asserts the following counterclaims against Ain Jeem: declaratory judgment (Count I), breach of contract (Count II), and tortious interference with contractual relations (Count III). (Id. at ¶¶ 39-59).

II. Discussion

The Court has an independent obligation to dismiss a shotgun pleading. “If, in the face of a shotgun complaint, the defendant does not move the district court to require a more definite statement, the court, in the exercise of its inherent power, must intervene sua sponte and order a repleader.” McWhorter v. Miller, Einhouse, Rymer & Boyd, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-1978-GAP-KRS, 2009 WL 92846, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2009) (emphasis omitted). This applies to counterclaims as well. See, e.g., CEMEX Constr. Materials Fla., LLC v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., No. 3:16-cv-186- MMH-JRK, 2016 WL 9383319, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2016) (sua sponte dismissing a counterclaim as a shotgun pleading). The Eleventh Circuit has “identified four rough types or categories of shotgun pleadings”: (1) “a [counterclaim] containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts”; (2) a counterclaim that is “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action”; (3) a counterclaim that does “not separat[e] into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief”; and (4) a counterclaim that “assert[s] multiple claims against multiple [counterclaim-defendants] without specifying which of the [counterclaim-defendants] are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the [counterclaim-defendants] the claim is brought against.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F. 3d 1313, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2015). “The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail to . . . give the [counterclaim-defendants] adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323. Here, Hall of Fame’s counterclaims are a shotgun pleading because they fall within the first category identified in Weiland. Counts II and III roll all preceding allegations into each count. (Doc. # 51 at ¶¶ 48, 54). Indeed, Count II begins by stating: “[Hall of Fame] restates and incorporates herein by reference the averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 47 of its Counterclaims.” (Id. at ¶ 48). This includes paragraphs 39 through 47, which form Count I. (Id. at ¶¶ 39-47). And, Count III begins by stating: “[Hall of Fame] restates and incorporates herein by reference the averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 53 of its Counterclaims.” (Id. at ¶ 54). This includes paragraphs 39 through 47 and 48 through 53, which form Count I and Count

II, respectively. (Id. at ¶¶ 39-53). This is impermissible. See Weiland, 792 F. 3d at 1322 (identifying “a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts” as a shotgun complaint).

Accordingly, Hall of Fame’s counterclaims are dismissed as a shotgun pleading. See Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (affirming the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a shotgun pleading). Still, the Court grants leave to amend. See Madak v. Nocco, No. 8:18- cv-2665-VMC-AEP, 2018 WL 6472337, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2018) (“Because the Complaint is a shotgun complaint, repleader is necessary[.]”).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Defendant and Counterclaimant Hall of Fame Sports Memorabilia, Inc’s counterclaims (Doc. # 51) are sua sponte DISMISSED as a shotgun pleading. (2) Hall of Fame may file amended counterclaims that are not a shotgun pleading by July 20, 2021. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of July, 2021.

igs? Ir. Mesnenly VIR IA M. HERNANDEZ’*COVINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw