Category: Sanctions For Frivolous Lawsuits

Dershowitz Sanctioned By Arizona District Court


On July 14, 2023, the District Court for Arizona issued an order denying Alan Dershowitz’ Application for an Order to Show Cause. The effect of this order is that Mr. Dershowitz was sanctioned by the district court for signing pleadings in the case captioned Kari Lake, et al. v. Adrian Fontes. No. 22-cv-00677-PHX-JJT. The plaintiff is a former candidate for governor of Arizona. The defendants are Maricopa county election officials.

The procedural history of the lawsuit is complicated. In April 2022, Lake filed suit against Maricopa County election officials to prohibit the use of electronic voting machines. The Court dismissed the case on August 22, 2022. Lake v. Hobbs, 623 F.Supp. 3d 1015 (D. Ariz. 2022). The Defendants moved for sanctions under Rule 11(b)(3). They “argued that Plaintiffs and their counsel made false allegations about Arizona elections in violation of Rule 11(b)(3) and brought this case for the improper purpose of ‘sowing doubts about the reliability and trustworthiness of elections for own financial and political benefit’ in violation of Rule 11(b)(1). Defendants further argued that the lawyers violated Rules 11(b)(2) and (3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. After briefing the court granted the motion and held that sanctions were warranted under Rule 11 and Section 1927. Dershowitz then filed an Application for Order to Show Cause to order the Maricopa Defendants to “show cause as to why an award of sanctions should be entered against Mr. Dershowitz personally or his consulting firm.” Dershowitz argued that his role in the matter was very limited and noted that he signed the complaint and first amended complaint as “of counsel.” Dershowitz argued that the words “of counsel” meant that his involvement was too limited for him to be sanctioned.

On May 20, 2022, the Maricopa Defendants sent Dershowitz and the other lawyers for Kari Lake a safe-harbor letter advising them that the Defendants believed the lawsuit was frivolous.

The District Court rejected Dershowitz’s argument that he did not violate Rule 11. To be sanctioned under Rule 11, the lawyer had to have signed the pleading. Here, Dershowitz signed both the original complaint and the amended complaint. By signing a complaint, the lawyer certifies that the filing is “not being presented for an improper purpose” and that the “legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a non frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law” and “the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” Once the lawyer signs the pleading, Rule 11 applies even if the lawyer later withdraws from the case.

The District Court rejected the argument that Dershowitz had very limited involvement in the case because Dershowitz did sign the complaint and the amended complaint. The Court also rejected Dershowitz’s argument that he was listed as “of counsel” on the Complaint. “A contrary ruling here could diminish the significance of attorney signatures and cause courts to question whether they can be relied upon with confidence. If would offer safe harbor to attorneys who designate themselves ‘of counsel’ no matter the inadequacy of the filings they sign.” p. 23.

“Failing to impose meaningful sanctions here might very well encourage others to follow suit by lending their credibility to documents filed in court without facing any real consequence if their certifications prove hollow or incomplete. The need for general deterrence is therefore significant.” p. 25.

The Court upheld the Rule 11 sanctions and the 28 U.S.C. §1927 sanctions against Dershowitz. Because of his limited involvement, the court held that Dershowitz would only be held responsible for 10% of the attorney fee award in favor of the Defendants. Dershowitz has the right to appeal the decision and the Ninth Circuit may view matters differently.

Comment: the opinion is thoughtful and well-written. Generally, sanctions cases come down to a number of factors. In this case, the Defendants warned the lawyers that Defendants believed the lawsuit was frivolous and the lawyers did not heed those warnings. Additionally, I agree with the Court’s holding that listing a lawyer as “of counsel” should not give that lawyer a defense to sanctions litigation. The opinion also recognizes the limited role that Dershowitz played in the litigation and it reduces his portion of the attorney fee award. Increasingly, courts and attorney disciplinary bodies have been highly unsympathetic to lawyers who made false allegations about voting machines and the conduct of recent elections. Courts may regard these lawsuits as a threat to the fabric of democracy. Numerous lawyers for former President Trump have been sanctioned by courts and subjected to attorney disciplinary investigations.

Before you sign a complaint, consider whether you have a factual basis to claim that the allegations in the complaint are true. If you do not have any such basis, do not sign. Ask yourself “Is there evidence that voting machines miscount votes or favor candidates of one party over another party?” Is the evidence credible or is it merely conjecture?

Filing Complaint Without Authorization of Client Leads to Rule 11 Sanctions


In Edwards v. Wells Fargo Bank, 19-cv-14409 D. New Jersey January 5, 2003, the Court awarded Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel for failing to obtain the authorization of his client before filing the case. At a hearing the lawyer conceded that he lacked authorization to file the case. It is difficult for me to comprehend the court’s rulings. The pertinent parts of the ruling are quoted below:

WHEREAS, the Court held a hearing on the Order to Show Cause on July 7, 2021, with both Thomas and Edwards in attendance, (ECF No. 29), and where Thomas conceded on the Record that Edwards had not hired him to bring this case and that in fact Thomas had never met Edwards prior to the Order to Show Cause hearing on July 7, 2021, (ECF No. 38 at 23:22-23); and

WHEREAS, the Court noticed Thomas at both the hearing and in the Order issued on July 8, 2021 that the Court was contemplating sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Professional Conduct and gave Thomas a second chance to Show Cause to the Court; and

WHEREAS, Thomas received two extensions and nearly two months of time to prepare his second response to the July 8, 2021 Order to Show Cause (ECF Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37); and

WHEREAS, the Court found Thomas’ explanations as to why this case was brought under Edwards’ name were insufficient, (ECF No. 39); and

WHEREAS, the Court found that Thomas was not authorized by Edwards to bring this action, (ECF No. 39 at 34-35); and…

WHEREAS, the Court found that Thomas filed and pursued this lawsuit for improper purposes, violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1), (among other violations) (ECF No. 39 at 20-21)[2] (“the Court is unable to conceive of any proper basis Thomas could have had for filing this Complaint”) (emphasis in original); and

WHEREAS, with the Court finding a violation of Rule 11(b)(1), the case was brought improperly ab initio, without Edwards’ knowledge or consent;

File A Dispositive Motion Before Seeking Rule 11 Sanctions


If you read a complaint and develop the conviction that the complaint is frivolous or otherwise supports a sanctions claim, don’t rush to seek sanctions. Seek dismissal first. Then, if successful, seek sanctions. Otherwise the court will deny the sanctions motion without giving it any consideration.

Defendant argues that sanctions are appropriate because “Plaintiff’s complaint is meritless and subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Defendant has failed, however, to move for relief under Rules 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6). In light of Defendant’s failure to move for relief under these Rules or otherwise challenge the viability of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions is improper and premature. See, e.g., Dobronski v. Alarm Management II L.L.C., 2019 WL 1232690 at *2 (E.D. Mich., Mar. 18, 2019) (a Rule 11 motion for sanctions is not an appropriate substitute for a properly filed motion under Rule 12 or Rule 56); Almeida v. Bennet Auto Supply, Inc., 335 F.R.D. 463, 466 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (where defendant claims that the institution of a lawsuit was improper, a determination as to the propriety of Rule 11 sanctions cannot be made until the conclusion of the case); United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Dorn Homes Inc., 2020 WL 8416010 at *3 (D. Ariz., Jan. 9, 2020) (same); Mouzin Brothers Farms, LLC v. Dowdy, 2022 WL 16841583 at *1 (M.D. Ga., Nov. 9, 2022) (same). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s motion be denied without prejudice.

Jaiyeola v. Bryan, 22 CV 844 W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

http://www.clintonlaw.net

Six Years Of Frivolous Litigation Equals Rule 11 Sanctions


A Michigan district court found that a plaintiff who had spent six years challenging zoning regulations was liable for Rule 11 sanctions.

After conducting a de novo review of the R & R, the objections, and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and that the R & R should be adopted. As stated by the Magistrate Judge, there is “nothing reasonable about Plaintiff’s conduct in this matter” (ECF No. 53 at PageID.603). Over the past six years, Plaintiff has unsuccessfully challenged Marshall Township’s efforts to enforce zoning regulations in both federal and state court. The claims in the present case were not discernable. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the “imposition of Rule 11 sanctions is both appropriate and necessary to deter Plaintiff and others from wasting this Court’s limited resources and subjecting future litigants to similar behavior” (id.). Plaintiff’s argument fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

Plaintiff argues that his claims and pleadings were not frivolous in this case. He contends that the Court permitted him to “e-file” his pleadings, “proving that Plaintiff’s pleadings were not considered `frivolous’ at that time” (ECF No. 54 at PageID.607). He further argues that if the pleadings were frivolous, “why has [he] not been charged with perjury” (id. at PageID.607).

Cousino v. Township of Marshall, 21-cv-679 (W.D. Michigan 2022). The current case has been pending since 2021 so the “six years” the court is referring to must mean other litigation. I’m not sure that is a proper basis for awarding sanctions in the above-captioned case. The court does not mention a false allegation in its opinion.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

http://www.clintonlaw.net

Trump v. Clinton – A Fertile Ground For Sanctions Motions


The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed Trump v. Clinton 2:22-cv-14102 (Middlebrooks, J.) which alleged a smorgasbord of grievances against various defendants who plaintiff claimed had attempted to rid the 2016 Presidential Election against him. Defendant Charles Halliday, Jr. filed the first of an expected dozen or so Rule 11 motions against the lawyers for the former President. The motion alleges sloppy work by Trump’s lawyers.

“Defendant Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr has been dragged into this lawsuit via speculation, rumor and innuendo.Large and small matters are falsely and cavalierly presented in Plaintiff’s pleadings; any one of these false statements is grounds for sanction.

The original complaint falsely presented Mr. Dolan as a former Chairman of the DNC. Complaint, ¶96.Undersigned counsel sent a Rule 11 letter to Plaintiff’s counsel noting, among other things, that statement was false.See Exhibit A. The Amended Complaint now describes

Mr. Dolan as the former Chairman of a “national democratic political organization.” Amended Complaint, ¶96. Thatdoes not fix the problem, as Mr. Dolan was never the Chairman of any such organization. Mr. Dolan’s resume is available online and could have been easily checked.

The new, Amended Complaint further complicates its prior error by now identifying Mr. Dolan for the first timeas a citizen and resident of New York, Amended Complaint, ¶20. This is a new allegation that is not true at all, andagain could have been easily checked. Mr. Dolan lives and has lived for most of his adult life in Virginia. Mr. Dolan already submitted a declaration identifying himself as an Arlington, Virginia resident.Mr. Dolan is alleged to be the ultimate source of a rumor that Mr. Trump engaged in salacious sexual activity at a Moscow hotel.This is also not true, and there is no basis for this rumor….

There was no factual basis to allege that Mr. Dolan was ever Chairman of the DNC, or former Chairman of any national democratic political organization, and no basis to allege he has ever been a resident of New York. There apparently was not a scintilla of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff’s attorneys. These false statements alone merit sanction, especially since undersigned counsel warned Plaintiff’s counsel of a potential Rule 11 motion via letter. These false facts are indicative of a lack of reasonable diligence generally.”

Comment: I take no position on whether the motion has merit, but will keep readers updated on the results of this (and other expected sanctions motions) in this case.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

Plaintiff Ordered To Revise Damage Disclosures


A plaintiff was ordered to revise her damage disclosures in response to a Rule 37 motion. She avoided more serious sanctions. The Court re-opened discovery to allow the defendants to complete discovery regarding the updated disclosure.

Meza-Perez’s Rule 26 damages disclosures are woefully insufficient because they do not provide any analysis, explanation, formula, or computation. See ECF No. 246-2 at 9-10 (Meza-Perez’s damages disclosures). Instead, they provide only lump-sum amounts for her claimed elements of damages.

Rule 37 sanctions precluding Meza-Perez from presenting evidence of damages at trial would functionally dismiss some, if not all, of her claims. These inadequate disclosures are Meza-Perez’s fault and are willful. She prepared the disclosures and had several opportunities to supplement them but did not. Meza-Perez argued in her opposition that I should allow her to clarify her damages calculation as a lesser sanction, but she failed to include any such clarification, which she should have done. Meza-Perez cannot shift her Rule 26 disclosure obligations onto the defendants by arguing that they should have identified inadequacies in her disclosures.

Lesser sanctions are available and should be effective. I will allow Meza-Perez to submit to the defendants a supplemental damages disclosure by July 8, 2022. The defendants may conduct discovery regarding Meza-Perez’s damages for 30 days following her supplemental disclosure. This should limit the prejudice to the defendants caused by Meza-Perez’s inadequate disclosure, and still keep this case on track toward the pending trial date.

The case is Meza-Perez v. Sbarro, LLC, D. Nevada 2022, Case No. 2:19-cv-00373-APG-EJY.

Sanctions Awarded For Cut and Paste Brief


A litigant lost on summary judgment in the District Court. His lawyers appealed but they did not do a proper appellate brief. Instead, they just re-filed the brief they had filed in the district court with little edition. The result: Rule 38 damages awarded to the opposing party by the Third Circuit.

“Conboy and Gilsenan’s opening brief begins with a proper introductory 157*157sentence arguing that the District Court should not have granted summary judgment. Opening Br. at 1. But it quickly goes awry in the next paragraph: “The district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case….” Id. One could readily assume that the sentence included a typographical error, using “has” instead of “had.” But just two sentences later, the brief declares: “Venue is appropriately laid in the District Court of New Jersey….” Id. This second use of the present tense, denoting the wrong trial court, presages what comes after, which belies the notion of an honest mistake.

In the first sentence of his legal argument, counsel describes the summary judgment standard. Id. at 6. Two pages later, he argues that “summary judgment should be denied….” Id. at 8. In the next section of his argument, counsel again writes as if the case remains in the District Court, claiming “there is no reason to grant summary judgment based on jurisdictional reasons for either party.” Id. at 13. Apart from these unusual (and inappropriate) references to the case pending in the District Court, counsel’s fifteen pages of “argument” do not mention how the District Court erred. This left us with the suspicion that something was amiss with counsel’s brief.

Unfortunately, our suspicions were confirmed. Counsel for Conboy and Gilsenan simply took the summary judgment section of his District Court brief and copied and pasted it into his appellate brief, with minor changes such as swapping “Defendant” for “Appellee.” Compare Appendix A hereto, with Appendix B. This is not proper appellate advocacy.

Unsurprisingly, the lack of appellate argument reflects the correctness of the District Court’s summary judgment. The Court properly granted judgment on the UTPCPL and FDCPA claims because those statutes apply to consumer debts, not commercial ones like the debt at issue. In re Smith, 866 F.2d 576, 583 (3d Cir. 1989) (73 PA. CONS. STAT. § 201-9.2, the UTPCPL section on private actions, applies “only [to] those persons who purchase or lease goods or services primarily for consumer use rather than for commercial use”); Staub v. Harris, 626 F.2d 275, 278 (3d Cir. 1980) (the FDCPA “was intended to apply only to debts contracted by consumers for personal, family or household purposes” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Conboy and Gilsenan did not identify evidence supporting their claims against Seda Cog, their unjust enrichment claim against CBE, or their FCRA claim against the SBA. Nor did they point to evidence of any contract with CBE. In addition, the unconditional loan guarantees preempted the contract claim against the SBA, and the defamation claim against the SBA failed because of sovereign immunity. See Brumfield v. Sanders, 232 F.3d 376, 382 (3d Cir. 2000) (“[D]efamation suits against the United States are prohibited.”). Finally, although we have not explicitly addressed whether the United States has waived sovereign immunity as to unjust enrichment claims, we need not resolve that issue here because Conboy and Gilsenan cited no record evidence creating a factual dispute material to their unjust enrichment claim against the SBA. See Kabakjian v. United States, 267 F.3d 208, 213 (3d Cir. 2001) (“We may affirm a judgment on any ground apparent from the record.”).

158*158 Regrettably, counsel’s response to CBE’s motion for damages under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is yet another copy-and-paste job. Counsel copied Conboy and Gilsenan’s previous opposition to sanctions in the District Court under Civil Rules 11 and 37—with only insignificant alterations and additions. Compare Appendix C hereto, with Appendix A at 10-12. Contrary to counsel’s assertion, the Rule 38 motion did not duplicate the sanctions motions, and we will grant it even though the District Court’s denial of sanctions was well within its discretion.

Rule 38 authorizes compensatory damages—not sanctions or punishment —to reimburse appellees who must defend judgments against frivolous appeals, “and to preserve the appellate court calendar for cases worthy of consideration.” Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204, 209 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Huck v. Dawson,106 F.3d 45, 52 (3d Cir. 1997)); Beam, 383 F.3d at 108. We “employ[] an objective standard to determine whether or not an appeal is frivolous” on the merits, without considering appellants’ “good or bad faith.” Kerchner, 612 F.3d at 209 (quoting Hilmon Co. (V.I.) v. Hyatt Int’l, 899 F.2d 250, 253 (3d Cir. 1990)). “Here, despite many cues from … the District Court that [their] cause was wholly meritless,” see Beam, 383 F.3d at 109, Conboy and Gilsenan’s counsel filed a copy-and-paste appeal without bothering to explain what the District Court did wrong. It is hard to imagine a clearer case for Rule 38 damages.

We may impose these damages on clients, but here we will place responsibility for payment on the lawyer. See id. “[A]ttorneys have an affirmative obligation to research the law and to determine if a claim on appeal is utterly without merit and may be deemed frivolous.” Hilmon, 899 F.2d at 254. “[B]ecause it would be unfair to charge a damage award against [parties who have] relied upon [their] counsel’s expertise in deciding whether to appeal, we have routinely imposed Rule 38 damages upon counsel when a frivolous appeal stems from counsel’s professional error.” Beam, 383 F.3d at 109. In this case, Conboy and Gilsenan’s attorney is to blame for recycling meritless arguments without engaging the District Court’s analysis.

* * *

It’s not easy to become a lawyer. The practice of law is challenging, and even the best lawyers make mistakes from time to time. So we err on the side of leniency toward the bar in close cases. But the copy-and-paste jobs before us reflect a dereliction of duty, not an honest mistake. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s summary judgment and grant CBE’s motion for Rule 38 sanctions after counsel for CBE files an appropriate fee petition and counsel for Appellants has a chance to respond.”

Conboy v. United States Small Business Administration, 992 F.3d 153 (3rd Cir. 2021).

Evidence of Pre-Suit Investigation Defeats Sanctions Claim


Rule 11 sanctions motions are most often filed after a defendant wins the case on summary judgment. The Defendant will then argue that the plaintiff’s claims were objectively unreasonable or that the plaintiff failed to conduct a pre-suit investigation. In Dominguez v. Barracuda Tackle, LLC, No. 8:20-cv-1538 KKM-AEP, a patent infringement lawsuit, the court granted summary judgment to the Defendant but denied Rule 11 sanctions on the ground that plaintiff had conducted a pre-suit investigation. The court’s opinion contains a thoughtful, if pithy, explanation for the denial of sanctions.

Defendants’ objections raise two principal assertions regarding the motion for sanctions: (1) Plaintiffs’ counsel did not perform a pre-suit investigation and (2) Plaintiffs’ legal claims were clearly unreasonable. Upon a de novo review, the Court agrees with the well-reasoned explanation of the Magistrate Judge on those points. First, the Court finds that the declaration of Yunior Dominguez is evidence of a pre-suit investigation. While the declaration was not signed by Plaintiffs’ counsel, it still shows that Plaintiffs and counsel explored the validity of claims prior to suit. Second, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that a reasonable juror could conclude that the two bait nets at issue perform substantially the same function with substantially the same result. While ultimately this is not enough to create a triable issue of fact in the light of the claims construction, it was “not so quixotic as to warrant sanctions.” Rodick v. City of Schenectady, 1 F.3d 1341, 1351 (2d Cir. 1993). Indeed, if all suits that did not create a triable issue of fact were sanctionable, one doubts if the legal profession would continue to be a profitable enterprise. Although the Defendants assert that Plaintiffs filed this suit for the improper purpose of extracting a nuisance-value settlement from Defendants, at bottom, they offer no evidence of this malintent apart from the losing disposition of the claims. The Court declines to impose sanctions on this basis.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr. www.clintonlaw.net

Federal Judge Sanctions Lin Wood, Sidney Powell and other lawyers


In King v. Whitmer, No. 20-13134, Judge Linda Parker issued a 110 page opinion sanctioned several lawyers who filed the complaint and the amended complaint under Rule 11, the Court’s inherent authority and 28 U.S.C. §1927. This opinion is very significant and it may cause changes in the way election law is practiced in the future. The Court found that the allegations in the Complaint lacked a good faith basis in law and fact and that the lawyers vexatiously multiplied the proceedings. The court used every possible ground to support the sanctions award and made credibility findings.

A link to the opinion is here: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/172_opinion__order_King_733786_7.pdf

At the time these lawsuits were brought, they appeared to me to be reckless and risky. It is one thing to allege that a voter was disenfranchised. It is another thing all together to allege that the entire election was a fraud.

11th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of “Shotgun” Pleading


Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321 (11th Circ. 2021) affirms the dismissal of a shotgun pleading. A shotgun pleading is a poorly organized pleading usually filed by a pro se litigant. Here, the shotgun pleading was filed by an attorney, not a pro se litigant. The court described the pleading in this way:

Barmapov filed his initial complaint in the district court in March 2018, and he filed an amended complaint five months later. The amended complaint was 116 pages and 624 numbered paragraphs long, and it included 20 causes of action, under both federal and state law, against 23 named defendants and 20 John Doe defendants. The district court dismissed it because it was “in an improper shotgun format.” Barmapov had “lumped together” many of his allegations against the 23 named defendants, rendering his complaint “unclear and confusing as to which [d]efendant [was] being charged with which conduct.” The district court also described the complaint as “devoid of specific allegations” such that it was not clear what each defendant “specifically did to be liable as to each stated count.” Finally, the court criticized the complaint for incorporating about 350 paragraphs into each of the 20 counts, even though the “paragraphs [were] not all properly directed at the [d]efendants subject to [each] count, nor [were] they pertinent to each claim.” The court granted Barmapov leave to file a second amended complaint.

In his second amended complaint, Barmapov reduced the number of named defendants 1324*1324 to 16 and the length of the complaint to 92 pages and 440 numbered paragraphs. He also removed all federal causes of action. The 19 counts against the defendants included allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy —all presumably under Florida law.

The district court concluded that Barmapov’s second amended complaint “still fail[ed] to provide a short and plain statement justifying relief and … allegations that [were] simple, concise, and direct.

The court was unimpressed with the second amended complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice. The 11th Circuit affirmed with a published opinion.

But the second amended complaint undoubtedly falls into the second category of shotgun pleadings. It is rife with immaterial factual allegations, including five pages and 24 paragraphs of irrelevant details about the alleged criminal backgrounds of some of the defendants. To make matters worse, the complaint then incorporates these paragraphs into 13 of the 19 counts, including counts against defendants who had no part in this background history. Other examples of inconsequential details include Barmapov’s business background; the relationships among Yossi, Guy, and Avrham Amuial, Terry Rafih, and John Obeid; Barmapov’s history with Reuben Sastiel; the experiences of Barmapov’s grandson working for the Amuials; and the contentious business meetings between Barmapov, the Amuials, and Sastiel. In addition, the second amended complaint indiscriminately incorporates and repeats 249 numbered paragraphs of factual allegations—spanning 50 pages—into nine of the 19 counts, without any effort to connect or separate which of those 249 factual allegations relate to a particular count. As a result, these nine counts include factual allegations that are immaterial to the underlying causes of action. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1359 n.9 (11th Cir. 1997) (describing a complaint in which four counts incorporated all 43 numbered paragraphs of factual allegations, many of which appeared to relate to only one or two counts, as “an all-too-typical shotgun pleading”); see also Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322 n.12 (identifying Chudasama as an example of one of the second category of shotgun pleadings).

If these problems were not enough to make Barmapov’s second amended complaint a shotgun pleading, the complaint also includes numerous vague and conclusory allegations. It alleges that Yossi Amuial “sabotage[d]” Barmapov’s efforts to apply for financing, but it provides no explanation as to how this sabotage occurred. It also briefly states that four of the defendants “worked together to forge Barmapov’s signature” on important paperwork. Later, it states that six of the defendants “worked in concert to forge Barmapov’s signature” on documents related to a financing agreement and that one of these defendants then fraudulently notarized Barmapov’s signature. But the complaint never explains how these alleged forgeries relate to any of the 19 causes of action. Finally, at the end of his narrative account, Barmapov asserts that “Yossi, Guy, Avrham and Reuben … expelled him as a member” of the joint venture 1326*1326 because he refused to contribute more money. But he offers no explanation as to how he could have been expelled when, by his own account, there was only one other member of the joint venture.

Because Barmapov’s second amended complaint is “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial” allegations, a defendant who reads the complaint would be hard-pressed to understand “the grounds upon which each claim [against him] rests.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322-23. Take, for example, the first four counts, which allege that the Amuials and Reuben Sastiel were Barmapov’s business partners and that they breached their fiduciary duties. The complaint neither quotes nor provides any specific details about the operating agreement for the purported joint venture between Barmapov and these defendants. And its brief explanations of this business arrangement are nonsensical. The complaint states that only one of these four defendants—Sastiel—signed the operating agreement, but it asserts without explanation that the other three still owed fiduciary duties under the agreement. It calls Yossi a “member,” a “manager,” and an “agent” of the joint venture. It refers to Guy as a “member,” a “de facto manager,” and an “agent and employee.” Finally, it states that Avrham is a “member,” an “agent,” and a “de facto principal,” in addition to being Barmapov’s personal “confidant and business advisor.” If Barmapov himself cannot offer a coherent explanation for how the joint venture was structured, we cannot expect the defendants to do it for him by digging through 50 pages and 249 numbered paragraphs of scattershot factual allegations.

Comment: Ultimately, the dismissal of this complaint is the responsibility of the client’s lawyers who allowed a disorganized pleading to be filed with the court.