As defense counsel, not only do we have an obligation to evaluate plaintiffs’ complaints to develop affirmative defenses and form defense strategy, but we must also assess the viability of the claims on their face. In a recent decision, the United States District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania (“W.D. Pa.”) discussed the issue of “shotgun pleadings” in a case against multiple defendants and how these pleadings can be subject to dismissal.
In Marc J. Comer, Esq., as Administrator Ad Prosequendum and Administrator of the Estate of Carlos Abraham Melendez Hernandez a/k/a Carlos Melendez v. American Transmission Systems Incorporated, et. al, No. 23-1464 (W.D. Pa. May 29, 2025), the plaintiff’s decedent was a painter who was working on transmission towers when he was unfortunately electrocuted. His estate filed an initial complaint, which was dismissed without prejudice on the grounds that the complaint was replete with “shotgun pleadings” that alleged multiple allegations against several defendants without specifying which defendant was responsible for what specific negligent acts or omissions. Plaintiff filed a subsequent first amended complaint against several defendants, including a group of defendants labeled “Utility Defendants” (consisting of many electrical utility corporations), three personally named individuals and the decedent’s employer. All represented defendants moved for dismissal and decedent’s employer also moved for sanctions due to the shotgun pleadings, which were previously addressed before the Court at oral argument and in the ruling for the plaintiff’s initial complaint.
The United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has defined a shotgun pleading as one that “assert[s] multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought against.” Milo, LLC v. Procaccino, No. CV 16-5759, 2020 WL 1853499, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 13, 2020) (quoting Bartol v. Barrowclough, 251 F. Supp. 3d 855, 859 (E.D. Pa. 2017)) (emphasis added). A complaint is deemed to have shotgun pleadings when it fails to provide the defendant with adequate notice of the claims against it and the grounds on which those claims have been made. Id.
In this case, the W.D. Pa. Court stated some of the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint would leave the defendants guessing as to what specific allegations of negligence are being asserted against them. The Court highlights vague allegations, such as a statement that the Utility Defendants were part of a common organization and in fact and in practice did not maintain consistent nor clear lines of separation of their corporate form or activities, which makes it difficult to understand how certain defendants were involved in light of the authentic record. The plaintiff argued in response that the pleadings were sufficient to give adequate notice as to the allegations levied against defendants. However, the Court disagreed.
The Court further stated that with regard to the Utility Defendants, the negligence claims should be dismissed because the plaintiff’s allegations were inadequate. To the extent the Utility Defendants were alleged to be the employers of an independent contractor (the decedent’s employer), the W.D. Pa. discussed the longstanding rule that a landowner entity that hires an independent contractor is generally not liable for injuries sustained by a contractor for conditions that are as obvious to the contractor and its employees as it is to the landowner. There are exceptions to this rule when the landowner retains control over the means and method of the contractor’s work or there is a peculiar risk exception when the work involves a heightened (peculiar) risk or danger. The peculiar risk exception is context-dependent and assessed based on the specific industry at issue.
The Court found that the plaintiff’s allegations do not show that the Utility Defendants had superior knowledge of a dangerous condition, retained control or that the peculiar risk exception came into play. Further, the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the Utility Defendant’s duty to the decedent were fact-deficient and consisted of legal conclusions that were not supported by facts. Further, the peculiar risk exception would not apply to the decedent with respect to the risk of electrocution since he was employed on a team of painters engaged in the painting of transmission towers. With regard to the individually named employee defendants, the Court similarly found the plaintiff failed to plead non-conclusory allegations that show what authority these employees had to give direction to the decedent and his coworkers. Plaintiff’s allegations against decedent’s employers were also improper in light of a Workers’ Compensation settlement with the decedent’s parents.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Court granted the decedent’s employer’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice and the other defendants’ Motions without prejudice.
TAKEAWAY TIP:
This case is useful for defense counsel to remember and refer back to when evaluating the adequacy and sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claims. A pleading cannot simply consist of an unsubstantiated regurgitation of blanket allegations and unsupported legal conclusions.
[View source.]
