Synergy Real Estate of SW Florida, Inc. et al v. Premier Property Management of SW Florida, LLC et al, No. 2:2011cv00707 - Document 35 (M.D. Fla. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 8 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Complaint within twenty-one days. See Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 9/12/2012. (AAA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION SYNERGY REAL ESTATE OF SW FLORIDA, INC., GULF COAST MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, and LOUIS PFAFF, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 2:11-cv-707-FtM-29SPC PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OF SW FLORIDA, LLC, NAPLES NEW VENTURES, LLC, DEBORAH MCCABE, MICHAEL DEPAOLA, KRISTIN DEPAOLA, CYNTHIA JONES, and JAMES JONES, Defendants. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on defendants Joint Motion to Dismiss and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. #8). Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #10). I. On July 5, 2011, plaintiffs Synergy Real Estate of SW Florida, Inc. (Synergy), Gulf Coast Management Group, LLC (Gulf Coast) and Louis Pfaff defendants filed Premier a nine-count Property Complaint Management of (Doc. SW #1) against Florida, LLC (Premier), Naples New Ventures, LLC (Naples New Ventures), Deborah McCabe, Michael DePaola, Kristin DePaola, Cynthia Jones, and James Jones. Plaintiffs bring claims against defendants for cyberpiracy, unfair trade practices, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with advantageous business relationships, breach of fiduciary duty, and organized scheme to defraud. (Doc. #1.) Defendants contend that plaintiffs filed this Complaint in an attempt to circumvent the state court proceedings where three actions and two appeals arising from the same common nucleus of facts are pending. (Doc. #8.) Defendants also assert that this action is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,1 that plaintiff Synergy does not have standing because it is a dissolved corporation, and that plaintiffs have failed to meet the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) As set forth below, the Court finds that the Complaint is unmanageable in its current form and will be dismissed with leave to amend. II. Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiffs respond that because an appeal from the state court judgment was still pending at the time they filed their Complaint, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine makes clear that federal district courts cannot review state court final judgments because that task is reserved for state appellate courts or, as a last resort, the United States Supreme Court. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). 1 Casale v. This is a narrow Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). -2- doctrine, confined to cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments. Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 464 (2006)(quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)); Casale, 558 F.3d at 1260. Because an appeal from the state court judgment remained pending at the time plaintiffs filed their Complaint (see Doc. #8, p. 4), the Court agrees with plaintiffs and finds that the RookerFeldman doctrine is inapplicable here. See Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1279 (11th Cir. 2009)( [S]tate proceedings have not ended for purposes of Rooker-Feldman when an appeal from the state court judgment remains pending at the time the plaintiff commences the federal court action. ). III. All nine counts in the Complaint contain a paragraph realleging the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs. (Doc. #1, ΒΆΒΆ 48, 57, 63, 69, 75, 79, 83, 90, 93.) typical shotgun complaint This is a shotgun pleading. contains several counts, each The one incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts [ ] contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions. Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, -3- 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs will be required to replead each of their claims and to specify which factual allegations are relevant to each count. See Johnson Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 162 F.3d 1290, 1333 (11th Cir. 1998)( These types of cases invariably begin with a long list of general allegations, most of which are immaterial to most of the claims for relief. The general allegations are incorporated by reference into each count of the complaint; the complaint is followed by an answer that responds to each and every statement. If the trial judge does not quickly demand repleader, all is lost-extended and largely aimless discovery will commence, and the trial court will soon be drowned in an uncharted sea of depositions, interrogatories, and affidavits. ). Plaintiffs may also take this opportunity to address any additional pleading deficiencies. For example, by indiscriminately lumping defendants together, plaintiffs have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Rule 8(a) requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Fed. Under this rule, when a complaint alleges that multiple defendants are liable for multiple claims, courts must determine whether the complaint gives adequate notice to each defendant. Pro Image Installers, Inc. v. Dillon, No. 3:08cv273, 2009 WL 112953, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2009)(citing Atuahene v. City of Hartford, 10 F. App'x 33, 34 (2d Cir. 2001)); Bentley v. -4- Bank of Am., 773 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1373 (S.D. Fla. 2011). Although a complaint against multiple defendants is usually read as making the same allegation against each defendant individually, Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir. 1997), factual allegations must give each defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds on which the claim rests. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007). Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Accordingly, at times, a plaintiff s grouping of defendants in a complaint may require a more definite statement. 928 F. Supp. 1161, See Veltmann v. Walpole Pharmacy, Inc., 1164 (M.D. Fla. 1996); Lane v. Capital Acquisitions & Mgmt., Co., No. 04-60602, 2006 WL 4590705, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2006)( By lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, the [] Complaint fails to satisfy the minimum standard of Rule 8. ). Plaintiffs may also review the factual allegations asserted in support of its nine substantive claims. The complaint requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. 555. Plaintiffs should clearly and Twombly, 550 U.S. at concisely state the circumstances, occurrences and events which support each of their claims. As the Complaint is not properly alleged, the Court need not address defendants other arguments at this time. -5- Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Defendants Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #8) is GRANTED and the Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed without prejudice. 2. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint WITHIN TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS of this Opinion and Order. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 12th day of September, 2012. Copies: Counsel of record -6-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.