MT Products LLC. v. Peterson et al
| MT Products LLC. doing business as Med Tech |
| Corey Peterson, Zephyr Marketing, Doe Company 1 and Doe Company 2 |
| 8:2025cv01645 |
| June 25, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Sean P Flynn |
| Kathryn Kimball Mizelle |
| Contract: Recovery/Enforcement |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 2, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Local Rule 1.11(e), which provides that, unless an order states another time, a seal under Rule 1.11 expires ninety days after a case is closed and all appeals are exhausted. To prevent the content of a sealed item from appearing on the docket after the seal expires, a party or interested non-party must move for relief before the seal expires. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (MSN) |
| Filing 8 JUDGMENT that this case is dismissed without prejudice. ( Signed by Deputy Clerk) (MSN) |
Filing 7
ENDORSED ORDER: A previous order dismissed the plaintiff's initial complaint as a shotgun pleading, provided leave to amend, and identified the specific issue that the plaintiff needed to fix. (Doc. 4). Despite this instruction, the plaintiff's amended complaint includes the exact same shotgun error. (Doc. #5). Again, in each count, the plaintiff "repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs," leading to a situation where counts II through VII contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015) ("The most common type [of shotgun pleading]--by a long shot--is a complaint containing multiple counts 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."). Because the counseled plaintiff failed to fix the issues in his complaint despite a sua sponte opportunity and instructions on how to do so, dismissal of this action is warranted without any further leave to replead. Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. If plaintiff elects to refile this action, counsel should ensure compliance with all Local Rules, including Local Rule 1.08. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, which shall read "This case is dismissed without prejudice," and to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 7/1/2025. (BTM)
|
| Filing 6 PROPOSED summons to be issued by MT Products LLC.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons)(Moser, Anthony) |
| Filing 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand. filed by MT Products LLC. Related document: #1 Complaint filed by MT Products LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit)(Moser, Anthony) **Summons not issued, counsel notified. Modified on 7/1/2025 as to docket text (ARL). |
|
Filing 4
ENDORSED ORDER: Upon review, the Court finds this complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). Specifically, in each count, the plaintiff "repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs," leading to a situation where counts II through VIII contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions. See id. at 1321 ("The most common type [of shotgun pleading]--by a long shot--is a complaint containing multiple counts 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."). Accordingly, the plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, and the plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint no later than July 10, 2025. Also, even though the plaintiff pleads a federal claim, the plaintiff rests this Court's jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. 1332, which sets out the rules for diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff is reminded that, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an LLC must allege the citizenship of each member. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[A] limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen."). If the plaintiff intends on claiming that diversity jurisdiction exists, it must properly allege citizenship in any amended complaint. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 6/26/2025. (BTM)
|
|
Filing 3
CIVIL CASE STANDING ORDER. The parties shall meet and file a Case Management Report using the standard form on the Court's website within forty days after any defendant appears. Each party must also file a Corporate Disclosure Statement using the standard template attached to this Order (also available on the undersigned's website under the "forms" tab) within fourteen days after appearing. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 6/26/2025. (BTM)
|
| Filing 2 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle and Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn. New case number: 8:25-cv-1645-KKM-SPF. (AA) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Plaintiffs with Jury Demand (Filing fee $405 receipt number AFLMDC-23529990) filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Proposed Summons)(Moser, Anthony) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
