BlogLine

Rule 8 reloaded: Ninth Circuit takes aim at shotgun pleadings

2/16/26

By: Robert Scavone Jr.

The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Gibson v. City of Portland signals a broader shift in how district courts may treat unclear complaints.

In this qualified immunity case, the district court dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds, including that several claims failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit framed the problem bluntly: the case presented “complex questions of fact and law . . . made all the more complicated by Plaintiffs’ shotgun pleading.” Although the complaint contained 252 numbered paragraphs, “its structure obscured rather than clarified the claims . . . leaving to Defendants, the district court, and us to decipher the details.”

The majority grounded its reasoning in fairness and efficiency. Shotgun pleadings undermine Rule 8’s core notice function, making it “difficult, if not impossible, for the opposing party to formulate a response.” They also delay the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” And from a judicial efficiency perspective, requiring repleader “prevents the needless expenditure of finite judicial resources.”

For the majority, enforcing the shotgun pleading rule flows naturally from courts’ obligation to apply the correct legal standard and manage litigation efficiently. That authority exists even if defendants do not perfectly frame the issue. The court rejected the dissent’s assertion that it adopted the rule sua sponte, explaining that defendants had challenged the complaint under Rule 8 and that the district court reasoned the complaint was a shotgun pleading. As the majority explained, “[t]hat some of the parties may not have expressly used the term ‘shotgun pleading’ does not prevent us from addressing the substance of the district court’s ruling.”

Judge Forrest, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed with the immunity rulings but strongly disagreed with the majority’s embrace of the shotgun pleading rule. She criticized the decision as “sua sponte adopting the ‘shotgun pleading’ rule,” calling it “unnecessary” and “unwise.” In her view, the Federal Rules already provide sufficient tools to address unclear pleadings without creating additional doctrinal gloss.

Judge Forrest also warned that the majority’s approach sidestepped the party-presentation principle. Because defendants did not explicitly invoke a shotgun pleading theory, plaintiffs had “no reason to raise those arguments.”

She further emphasized that Rule 12(e) already provides a tailored solution, allowing defendants to seek a more definite statement when a complaint is too vague to answer. In her view, the majority’s concerns—that shotgun pleadings make it “difficult, if not impossible” to formulate a response—are precisely what Rule 12(e) was designed to address.

The decision both affirms dismissal and signals a clear warning: volume cannot substitute for clarity. Complaints that force courts and defendants to untangle undifferentiated allegations risk dismissal.

For defense lawyers, the takeaway is straightforward. Raise shotgun pleading arguments early and explicitly. Emphasize the majority’s core point: scattershot allegations make it “difficult, if not impossible,” to understand and respond to the claims. In multi-defendant cases, plaintiffs must identify which facts support which claims against which defendants—explain “who did what.” Defense counsel should consider seeking dismissal, a Rule 12(e) order for a more definite statement, or a claim-by-claim, defendant-by-defendant amended complaint. And when some claims survive but others are dismissed without prejudice, defense counsel should evaluate whether to request a pause in discovery pending amendment, given the likelihood that plaintiffs will reconstruct their theories of liability in the amended complaint.

For more information, please contact Robert Scavone Jr.at robert.scavone@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.