Harry Wagner v. First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the court’s “supervisory obligation to sua sponte order repleading” when faced with a shotgun complaint arises under Rule 12(e)
• explaining that district courts have a supervisory obligation to sua sponte order repleading of a shotgun complaint
• explaining that shotgun pleadings “incorporate every antecedent allegation by reference into each subsequent claim for relief” (citing Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam))
• noting that shotgun pleading fails to make the connection between “the substantive count and the factual predicates . . . [such that] courts cannot perform their gatekeeping function with regard to the averments of [the claim].”
• requiring Rule 9(b) particularity for non-fraud claims based on the same facts as a fraud claim
• applying Rule 9(b) to fraud and non-fraud claims under the Securities Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).