1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Charles Anthony JUDICE, Case No.: 25-cv-0887-AGS-MSB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF 11, 13) AND 5 v. DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 6 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LEAVE TO AMEND 7 VETERAN AFFAIRS, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff Charles Judice, acting without an attorney, has sued his ex-spouse James 11 Judice, the City of Chula Vista, and other defendants. (See generally ECF 8.) Defendants 12 James Judice and Chula Vista both move to dismiss, in large part because Charles Judice’s 13 119-page, often single-spaced amended complaint was so verbose and confusing that 14 defendants were unsure what claims are alleged against them. (See ECF 12-1, at 5; 15 ECF 13-1, at 8.) Both also move to dismiss the parts of the complaint that they can discern 16 due to Judice’s failure to state a claim. (See generally ECF 12-1; ECF 13-1.) 17 Despite an opportunity to oppose those motions, Judice never responded. So, he has 18 “waived” and “abandoned” his current claims against both defendants because he failed to 19 “address any of [defendants’] arguments concerning them.” See American Ice Mach. v. 20 Modern Ice Equip.,

, 1156 (S.D. Cal. 2025). At any rate, the Court 21 agrees that the amended complaint, as it stands, is an impermissible “shotgun pleading,” 22 that is, a document that “excessively prioritizes breadth over depth, such that the complaint 23 is so vague and ambiguous that the defendants could not reasonably be required to frame a 24 responsive pleading.” See Espino v. Statebridge Co., No. 2:24-CV-02347-CDS-DJA, 2025

, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (cleaned up). “Shotgun pleadings” are 26 “unacceptable” because they “overwhelm defendants with an unclear mass of allegations 27 and make it difficult or impossible for defendants to make informed responses to the 28 1 plaintiff’s allegations.” Meggette v. California Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 25-CV-04722- 2 DMR,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2025) (cleaned up). 3 Judice’s amended complaint has so many digressions and is so rife with seemingly 4 irrelevant details that it fails to provide sufficient notice to either party of the claims against 5 them. (See, e.g., ECF 8, at 9 (including a half-page, single-spaced, standalone digression 6 about how “James did not have any car seats in his car” at the time of the parties’ divorce).) 7 Despite its length, the amended complaint also does not explain with any clarity what 8 claims plaintiff intends to bring against which defendant. Although there are headings 9 differentiated by roman numerals (I, II, III, etc.), these do not sensibly appear to be 10 individual counts. For example, the heading “V. FUNDAMENTAL 11 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT ISSUE” merely precedes a list of seven court cases 12 or constitutional amendments with no tie to any fact or defendant. (ECF 8, at 40.) And the 13 entire amended complaint is a morass of text, devoid of the required numbered paragraphs 14 to permit defendants to sensibly answer each assertion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“A party 15 must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable 16 to a single set of circumstances. . . . If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded 17 on a separate transaction or occurrence—and each defense other than a denial—must be 18 stated in a separate count or defense.”). (See generally ECF 8.) 19 Thus, the amended complaint must be dismissed. Although the other three 20 defendants have not yet moved to dismiss, there is no indication on the record that any 21 were served. And the amended complaint’s “shotgun” nature applies to them at least as 22 much as it does the moving defendants. The Court will thus dismiss the entire amended 23 complaint. 24 Unless “amendment would be futile or the plaintiff has failed to cure the complaint’s 25 deficiencies despite repeated opportunities,” a dismissal against an unrepresented plaintiff 26 like Judice should be with leave to amend. See Garmon v. County of Los Angeles,

837, 842 (9th Cir. 2016). By November 21, 2025, Judice may file a second amended 28 complaint. If Judice “does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a | || district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.” 2 || Lira v. Herrera,

, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). 3 Dated: October 16, 2025

5 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28