The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.
The complaint at issue began each of its eight counts—one for each asserted patent—with the following paragraph: “Plaintiff realleges and incorporates preceding paragraphs herein.” Each count included at least twelve additional paragraphs of allegations.
The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the asserted claims were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending denial of the motion to dismiss.
The district court rejected the R&R and sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the complaint was an improper “shotgun pleading.” Quoting Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, the court noted that the complaint used the “most common type” of shotgun pleading where “each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint.” 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015). The court then explained that under Weiland, district courts in the Eleventh Circuit are required to dismiss such pleadings without prejudice.
In Weiland, the Eleventh Circuit discussed the various types of shotgun pleading that it had rebuked over three decades. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321-23. Along with the most common “reallegation and incorporation” pleading, the court identified conclusory, vague, and immaterial allegations; not separating into a different count each cause of action; and failing to identify which of multiple defendants was responsible for the acts or omissions at issue. The Eleventh Circuit explained that the problem common to all types of shotgun pleading is that they do not “give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.
Courts in other jurisdictions have also expressed disfavor toward shotgun pleadings. See, e.g., De Camara v. Bryn Mawr Coll., No. CV 25-2287, 2025 WL 2779338, at *11 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 2025) (noting the Eleventh Circuit’s prominence in discussing the bulk of existing law on this issue); Resh, Inc. v. Skimlite Mfg. Inc., 666 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2023). However, other courts have found that pleading by “reallegation and incorporation” is not always defective. For example, in M.B. v. Schuylkill County, the court found that the complaint was not an improper shotgun pleading despite adopting all preceding allegations in each count because it provided adequate notice by describing in “significant detail” specific allegations against each defendant. 375 F. Supp. 3d 574, 585–87 (E.D. Pa. 2019).
Practice Tip:
To avoid unnecessary delays and costs associated with amending pleadings, plaintiffs should carefully consider a jurisdiction’s pleading requirements before filing suit. While successively incorporating all preceding allegations in each count is not always defective in certain Circuits, other Circuits treat this approach as an impermissible “shotgun pleading” that must be dismissed without prejudice.
T5.2 Ltd. v. Citrix Sys., Inc., No. 24-cv-62093, 2025 WL 3905138 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2025)