In Brooks v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 2024 WL 5186527 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2024), an employment discrimination/hostile work environment case, the court dismissed plaintiff’s third amended complaint (TAC).
Interestingly, the court did not address the merits, but rather focused on the procedural requirements for such a complaint:
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “The purpose of this requirement is to provide fair notice of the claims and to enable the adverse party to answer the complaint and prepare for trial.” Strunk v. U.S. House of Representatives, 68 Fed. App’x. 233, 235 (2d Cir. 2003). The Court has the power to dismiss complaints that fail to comply with the directives of Rule 8(a)(2). See Schiller v. Duthie, 2017 WL 3726993, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 28, 2017) (citing Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988)). Generally, only complaints that are “so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible” are dismissed for running afoul of Rule 8(a)(2). See Arias-Zeballos v. Tan, 2006 WL 3075528, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2006). However, complaints that are unnecessarily long-winded place an undue burden on the court as well as any parties seeking to respond, and thus may also be dismissed. See Nungesser v. Columbia University, No. 1:15-CV-3216-GHW, 2017 WL 1102661, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2017) (“Unnecessary prolixity in a pleading places an unjustified burden on the court and the party who must respond to it because they are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.”).
Plaintiff’s TAC totals 112 pages and contains 654 paragraphs. See ECF No. 49 (“TAC”). The length of Plaintiff’s TAC alone is sufficient grounds for this Court’s dismissal because it is neither short nor plain. See Blakely v. Wells, 209 Fed. App’x 18, 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirming the dismissal of a complaint spanning 57 pages and containing 597 paragraphs); Owens v. State of N.Y. Attorney General, 10 Fed. App’x. 34, 35 (2d Cir. 2001) (affirming the dismissal of a 55-page complaint); Jablonksi v. Special Counsel, Inc., 2017 WL 4342120, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2017) (dismissing a complaint containing 551 paragraphs). The Court notes that the Plaintiff brings thirty-four causes of action in the TAC which provides some explanation as to the TAC’s length. See TAC ¶ 650. Additionally, the content of the TAC is largely a detailed accounting of the numerous, concerning allegations Plaintiff raises against the Defendants. Thus, the Court does not solely base its decision on the number of pages or paragraphs in the TAC.
In addition to the length, Plaintiff’s TAC is at times confusing and difficult to comprehend. See Da Costa v. Marcucilli, 675 Fed. App’x 15, 17 (2d Cir. 2017) (dismissing a pro se complaint because it was convoluted, repetitive and difficult to understand); see also Djangmah v. Magafara, 2018 WL 4080346, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2018) (dismissing a pro se complaint where “[p]laintiff list[ed] a multitude of apparent wrongs … making it effectively impossible to discern the relevant allegations and to which of the Defendants they might apply.”). The TAC details the Defendants’ alleged conduct over more than six years, while Plaintiff held multiple positions and was employed by different corporate entities. See generally TAC. At times the TAC repeats factual allegations, including entire sub-sections of the TAC. See TAC ¶¶ 132-134 (alleging that Plaintiff’s 2017 complaint was missing from her personnel file in 2021), 212-217 (same).
Given the extensive nature of these allegations and the fact that the TAC is not clear as to which allegations pertain to which Defendants, it requires the Defendants, including all the Individual Defendants, to respond to all the allegations levied. TAC at 78-110 (asserting thirty-four causes of action, all of which refer to all the allegations in the TAC, and nineteen of which are brought against “All Defendants”). This places “an unjustified burden on the court and the party who must respond to [the complaint] because they are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.”
The court did, however, grant plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, noting that it would treat plaintiff’s third amended complaint as the original complaint.