Case 1:19-cv-05362-JPB Document 33 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`INFORM INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
` 1:19-CV-05362-JPB
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC; GOOGLE INC.;
`ALPHABET INC.; YOUTUBE, LLC;
`YOUTUBE, INC.; and JOHN DOES
`1-100,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc.
`
`16]. This Court finds as follows:
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Inform, Inc. is a digital media advertising company that provides a
`
`platform of services to online publishers, content creators and online advertisers.
`
`[Doc. 1, p. 2]. Inform competes with Google “in the online advertising market,
`
`specifically online video advertising,” and on November 25, 2019, Inform filed a
`
`Complaint against Defendants Google LLC, Google Inc., Alphabet Inc., YouTube,
`
`LLC, YouTube, Inc., and John Does 1-100 for anticompetitive behavior. Id. The
`
`Complaint alleges violations of the Sherman Act, violations of the Clayton Act and
`
`tortious interference. Id. at 93–101. On January 22, 2020, Defendants filed this
`
`Motion to Dismiss seeking dismissal of Inform’s Complaint for the following
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`INFORM INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
` 1:19-CV-05362-JPB
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC; GOOGLE INC.;
`ALPHABET INC.; YOUTUBE, LLC;
`YOUTUBE, INC.; and JOHN DOES
`1-100,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc.
`
`16]. This Court finds as follows:
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Inform, Inc. is a digital media advertising company that provides a
`
`platform of services to online publishers, content creators and online advertisers.
`
`[Doc. 1, p. 2]. Inform competes with Google “in the online advertising market,
`
`specifically online video advertising,” and on November 25, 2019, Inform filed a
`
`Complaint against Defendants Google LLC, Google Inc., Alphabet Inc., YouTube,
`
`LLC, YouTube, Inc., and John Does 1-100 for anticompetitive behavior. Id. The
`
`Complaint alleges violations of the Sherman Act, violations of the Clayton Act and
`
`tortious interference. Id. at 93–101. On January 22, 2020, Defendants filed this
`
`Motion to Dismiss seeking dismissal of Inform’s Complaint for the following
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05362-JPB Document 33 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 6
`
`reasons: (1) the Complaint is a shotgun pleading; (2) Inform lacks standing; and
`
`(3) Inform fails to state a claim for numerous reasons. [Doc. 16-1, p. 9].
`
`Additional facts are referenced below as needed.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`“Courts in the Eleventh Circuit have little tolerance for shotgun pleadings.”
`
`Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018). Shotgun
`
`pleadings “waste scarce judicial resources, inexorably broaden the scope of
`
`discovery, wreak havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine the public’s
`
`respect for the courts.” Arrington v. Green, 757 Fed. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir.
`
`2018).
`
`Shotgun pleadings, whether filed by plaintiffs or defendants, exact an
`intolerable toll on the trial court’s docket, lead to unnecessary and
`unchannelled discovery, and impose unwarranted expense on the
`litigants, the court and the court’s parajudicial personnel and
`resources. Moreover, justice is delayed for the litigants who are
`“standing in line,” waiting for their cases to be heard. The courts of
`appeals and the litigants appearing before them suffer as well.
`
`Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1356–57 (11th Cir. 2018). The
`
`Eleventh Circuit has even stated that tolerating shotgun pleadings “constitutes
`
`toleration of obstruction of justice.” Id. at 1357. Typically,
`
`[s]hotgun pleadings are characterized by: (1) multiple counts that
`each adopt the allegations of the preceding counts; (2) conclusory,
`vague and immaterial facts that do not clearly connect to a particular
`cause of action; (3) failing to separate each cause of action into
`distinct counts; or (4) combining multiple claims against multiple
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05362-JPB Document 33 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 6
`
`defendants without specifying which defendant is responsible for
`which act.
`
`McDonough v. City of Homestead, 771 Fed. App’x 952, 955 (11th Cir. 2019).
`
`This Court finds that Inform’s Complaint is a “quintessential ‘shotgun’
`
`pleading of the kind [the Eleventh Circuit has] condemned repeatedly.” Magluta v.
`
`Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). At 105 pages, it is in no sense a
`
`“short and plain statement of the claim” required by the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure. It is virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended
`
`to support which claims of relief since each cause of action incorporates more than
`
`190 paragraphs. Here, the Complaint suffers from three of the characteristics
`
`noted above: (1) multiple counts that each adopt the allegations of the preceding
`
`counts; (2) conclusory, vague and immaterial facts that do not clearly connect to a
`
`particular cause of action; and (3) a combination of multiple claims against
`
`multiple defendants without specifying which defendant is responsible for which
`
`act.
`
`First, the Complaint incorporates by reference 194 paragraphs of factual
`
`allegations into each of its six enumerated causes of action and each cause of
`
`action incorporates by reference each and every prior cause of action. [Doc. 1, pp.
`
`93–101]. For example, Inform begins Counts 1 and 2 as follows: “Plaintiff
`
`repeats and re-alleges every allegation above as if set forth herein in full.” Id. at
`
`93–94. Second, each enumerated cause of action is asserted against all defendants
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05362-JPB Document 33 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 6
`
`and Inform essentially accuses all defendants of being responsible for all alleged
`
`acts and omissions, such that no one defendant can identify what exactly it did
`
`wrong. Id. at 93–101. For example, Inform alleges that on April 4, 2016, “the
`
`Google team contacted one of Inform’s customers” in an attempt to convince the
`
`customer to switch to Google services and then Inform asserts Count 4 (tortious
`
`interference) against all defendants (Google LLC, Google Inc., Alphabet Inc.,
`
`YouTube, LLC, YouTube, Inc., and John Does 1-100). Id. at 65, 100. As a result,
`
`each count of the Complaint requires the reader to identify and sift through over
`
`190 paragraphs that are incorporated into each count and then parse through
`
`numerous allegations to identify those that have some relevance to a particular
`
`defendant or cause of action. Lastly, within the numerous factual allegations, the
`
`Complaint includes conclusory, vague and immaterial facts. Id. at 1–93. For
`
`example, Inform includes numerous paragraphs regarding the European Union
`
`Commission’s investigations into Google. See Id. at 89–91. As a result, “each
`
`count is replete with factual allegations that could not possibly be material to that
`
`specific count, and that any allegations that are material are buried beneath
`
`innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies.” Magluta, 256 F.3d at 1284.
`
`
`
`Importantly, however, before dismissing a complaint with prejudice on
`
`shotgun pleading grounds, “the district court must first explain how the pleading
`
`violates the shotgun-pleading rule and give the plaintiff at least one opportunity to
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05362-JPB Document 33 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 6
`
`re-plead the complaint.” Arrington, 757 Fed. App’x at 797. The Court has
`
`explained how the Complaint violates the shotgun-pleading rule above and will
`
`therefore give Inform an opportunity to re-plead its Complaint in accordance with
`
`the following:
`
`(1) Inform may not include conclusory, vague and immaterial facts that do not
`
`clearly connect to a particular cause of action.
`
`(2) Inform may not incorporate every factual paragraph into each count.
`
`(3) Inform must indicate which of the factual paragraphs support each
`
`individual count alleged.
`
`(4) Inform must identify what precise conduct is attributable to each individual
`
`defendant separately in each count when asserting a single count against
`
`multiple defendants.
`
`(5) Each individual count may only be based on a single legal claim (i.e., Inform
`
`may not assert a violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act and a violation of § 3 of
`
`the Clayton Act together in the same count).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, to the extent Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
`
`[Doc. 16] seeks dismissal on shotgun pleading grounds, the Motion is GRANTED
`
`in part and DENIED in part. The Court strikes the Complaint and orders Inform
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-05362-JPB Document 33 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 6
`
`to file an Amended Complaint that complies with this Order no later than October
`
`9, 2020. To the extent the Motion addresses the merits, it is DENIED as moot.
`
`SO ORDERED this 25th day of September, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________
`J. P. BOULEE
`United States District Judge
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
