I love "shotgun pleadings."
I guess what I love most about them -- aside from the phrase itself -- is that they are so easily correctable.
It really just requires minimal proofing to avoid, yet we see lawyers fall into that pleading trap over and over again. Hence the enduring nature of the term.
Anyway, remember that overpriced and underused baseball stadium that the poor taxpayers of Miami built for a baseball team that turned out to have lots of money even though they cried poverty and threatened to throw a tantrum and move to bumf&ck Idaho?
Turns out the City allegedly funded it from misleading and/or fraudulent bond offerings, according to this SEC suit that Judge Altonaga just gave the green light to proceed past the motion to dismiss stage:
Regarding the City’s reliance on Wagner, 464 F.3d 1273, to urge a dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety, the Court is not convinced the Complaint is a shotgun pleading. Each count does not incorporate every preceding allegation, including paragraphs of other counts, but rather each count incorporates only the general allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 115. Those general allegations support each claim for relief and identify the relevant events, misrepresentations, and omissions advanced by the SEC. Neither the Court nor Defendants have to sift through the allegations to see which ones support the cause of action purportedly stated and disregard allegations that only pertain to other counts, such as would be the case if each count incorporated allegations of the preceding count or counts.Wait a second -- this wasn't even a true "shotgun pleading" situation?
Do NOT take the phrase "shotgun pleading" in vain!
(BTW the City is being represented by former federal judge Tom Scott.)