There are 12 counts in the Amended Complaint, but they are not numbered consecutively. Furthermore, it appears that Plaintiff has merged several different complaints into one, one brought against both Defendants and two complaints brought against each Defendant. While all the counts read as if they are brought pursuant to FDUPTA, numerous other statutes are referred to, including RICO and Florida’s Telemarketing Act (Am. Compl. pgs. 3, 18-19.) While the Amended Complaint appears to be a FDUTPA claim, it is repetitive and rambling at times. Several counts appear to be cut-off mid-count. (Am Compl. pgs. 18-21, 24, 26.) Moreover, specific facts are not related to specific counts and the allegations are not consecutively numbered nor organized. Hence, Plaintiff is directed to plead each legal claim in a separate count with special attention paid to each element of each count. Although other numbered paragraphs may be incorporated by reference, this must be done with particular care so that only relevant paragraphs are referenced. Each count must state with specificity both the factual and legal basis for the claim it sets forth. Finally, several of the numerous exhibits attached to the Complaint provide unnecessary copies of statutes and regulations and should not be attached to any amended pleading.Other than that, though, not too shabby!