According to Judge Marra, it's when the defendants can understand the claims made against them:
“Shotgun” pleadings are pleadings in which it is “virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Tr. of Cent. Florida Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir.1996). The Court finds that the Complaint is not a shotgun pleading necessitating dismissal. Although each count of the Complaint does incorporate by reference all of the preceding allegations, the Court finds the claims are sufficiently definite to enable Defendants to know with what they are charged and to enable Defendants to respond to the allegations. The motion to dismiss the shotgun pleading is denied.Practitioners, why not just avoid this issue by not incorporating every prior allegation into each count?
Really, how hard is that?
In other news, as David reports, the Bar royally screwed up in how they characterized their "monitoring" of the "underlying proceedings" in a well-publicized case involving Lewis Tein.
Fortunately, I have obtained inside footage of the Bar grievance committee sessions, which seem to be unfolding in the usual manner:
My one piece of advice to these very good attorneys (not that they need any) -- get a mouthpiece/lawyer to do your talking on these types of matters, it's more effective that way.