Plaintiffs Grace D. Solis and Shirley Solis, proceeding pro se, sued Citibank, N.A., CENLAR Servicing, and various debt collection entities in the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit alleged violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and a Florida criminal witness tampering statute. These claims arose from the defendants' actions related to a state foreclosure proceeding concerning the Solises' homestead property, based on an alleged default on a home equity line of credit. The district court granted the defendants' joint motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint, characterizing it as a shotgun pleading and finding that certain claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior state court foreclosure judgment. The Solises appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint without allowing a third amendment and by incorrectly applying res judicata.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo for the Rule 12(b)(6) claim and for abuse of discretion regarding the shotgun pleading determination. The court reiterated that while pro se pleadings are liberally construed, courts cannot act as 'de facto counsel' to rewrite deficient complaints. The opinion defined shotgun pleadings as those that fail to state claims discretely, often by adopting allegations from preceding counts, using conclusory facts, failing to separate causes of action, or failing to specify which defendant is responsible for which acts. The court found the Second Amended Complaint fit the first and fourth types of shotgun pleadings. Regarding the request for leave to amend, the court noted that the Solises had already amended their complaint twice and had not separately moved for leave to amend a third time. Instead, their request was embedded within an opposition memorandum. Citing precedent, the court held that such an embedded request 'possesses no legal effect' and is null, meaning the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying it. On the res judicata issue, the court applied Florida law, which dictates that a judgment need not be final before the commencement of the second suit to trigger preclusion. Instead, if the judgment on the merits in the first action becomes final while the second suit is pending, res judicata applies. The Solises failed to address the elements of res judicata under Florida law or point to errors in the district court's analysis, rendering their argument that the timing of the foreclosure judgment barred the claim meritless.
The decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's strict stance against shotgun pleadings, even for pro se litigants, and clarifies that requests for leave to amend must be formally raised to be considered. Practically, it bars consumers from relitigating claims that could have been resolved in prior state court proceedings if those judgments become final while a federal suit is pending. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint, leaving the plaintiffs with no further opportunity to amend under the current procedural posture.