United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 2026

Ricardo Tyrone Mitchell v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. and Vista BMW Coconut...

Ricardo Tyrone Mitchell v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. and Vista BMW Coconut...
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · Decided April 23, 2026
Ricardo Tyrone Mitchell v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. and Vista BMW Coconut...

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 25-CV-62441-STRAUSS

RICARDO TYRONE MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC. and VISTA BMW COCONUT CREEK, Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REQUIRING CONFERRAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint [DE 25] (the “Motion”). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Motion fails to comply with the Court’s local rules because it does not contain a certificate of conferral. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3) (detailing conferral requirements); see also S.D. Fla. L.R. 1.1 (explaining “counsel” as used in local rules shall be construed to apply to pro se parties). The Court separately observes that the proposed amendment fails to state a claim because it is a “shotgun pleading.” See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320- (11th Cir. 2015) (describing characteristics of “shotgun pleadings”); Weil v. Phillips, 816 F.

App’x 339, 341 (11th Cir. 2020) (concluding complaint failed to state a claim because it was a “shotgun pleading”). Specifically, the Complaint fails to distinguish between the acts or omissions of each Defendant and is replete with conclusory or vague allegations, making amendment under the Motion futile. Cf. Rudder v. Wyrosdick, No. 21CV1001, 2022 WL 22286663, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2022) (“Because shotgun pleadings are impermissible, leave to amend should be denied as futile where the proposed amended complaint is a shotgun pleading.”).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 1. Plaintiff's Motion [DE 25] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJDUCE.

2. At the same conferral required under my prior order dated April 20, 2026, see [DE 24] at 4, the parties shall confer regarding Plaintiff’s desire to file an amended complaint and the impact any such amendment would have on the other issues to be discussed at the status conference set for April 29, 2026.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 23rd day of April 2026.

United States Magistrate Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.