Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Anthony Adao Carter and other plaintiffs sued Michael Munzing and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is docketed as No. 2:26-cv-08377-SB-SK. By the time of the October 15, 2026 order, the plaintiffs had filed three versions of a third amended complaint and a motion to remand, while the defendants had moved to dismiss. The court observed that the parties disagreed about which complaint was operative, suggesting that they had not adequately met and conferred or otherwise cooperated as the court expected.
The order addressed the sufficiency of the pleadings rather than deciding the merits of the underlying claims. It explained that deficiencies in all three versions made it difficult to determine which claims were asserted against which defendants. Those problems also impeded resolution of the pending motions, including the threshold question of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court therefore used its pleading review to establish a new complaint and motion schedule, while separately addressing an ex parte application for alternative service and a later notice of errata and correction.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that all three versions of the third amended complaint were deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. It reiterated that Rule 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and that a complaint must name each defendant, specify the claims against each, and allege sufficient facts supporting every claim’s elements. Relying on Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Gibson v. City of Portland, the court explained that it is not the district court’s job to make sense of a pleading, supply missing facts, or imagine claims that might fit the facts. It also recognized inherent authority to dismiss a shotgun pleading whether or not the parties raised that issue.
Applying those standards, the court focused on the most recent version, a 45-page pleading containing more than 300 numbered paragraphs. It identified vague references, conditional allegations, incomplete sentences, and frequent failures to connect particular claims and supporting conduct to individual defendants. Although the plaintiffs organized allegations by transaction and listed potentially applicable causes of action, they did not clearly link the alleged conduct to particular claims and often conditioned liability on facts to be established through discovery. The court required specific factual allegations tied to each cause of action and defendant, rather than conclusions or vague assertions.
The court dismissed all three versions with leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint by October 23, 2026. The new complaint must be complete in itself and attach any exhibits. Any renewed motions must follow good-faith meet-and-confer efforts and be filed by October 30, 2026. The court also denied the alternative-service request as moot, required plaintiffs to properly serve the Fourth Amended Complaint on all domestic defendants not yet served in the action by November 13, 2026, directed diligent service on the foreign defendants as required by law, and specified that any renewed alternative-service application must clearly identify the relief sought. The court warned plaintiffs’ counsel that persistent deficiencies and lack of care had needlessly delayed resolution, burdened opposing parties, and consumed substantial judicial resources.
Key Takeaways
- All three versions of the third amended complaint were dismissed under Rule 8, but the plaintiffs received leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint.
- The Fourth Amended Complaint is due October 23, 2026, must be complete in itself, and must attach any exhibits to the complaint.
- Any renewed motions must be filed by October 30, 2026, only after the parties meet and confer in good faith.
- The alternative-service request was denied as moot, and plaintiffs must properly serve the Fourth Amended Complaint on all domestic defendants not yet served by November 13, 2026.
- The court warned plaintiffs’ counsel about persistent deficiencies and lack of care, citing delay, burdens on opposing parties, and consumption of judicial resources.
Why It Matters
The order is a substantive pleading and case-management decision, not a merits adjudication of the parties’ claims. It leaves the plaintiffs an opportunity to cure the deficiencies, but requires a complaint that clearly allocates claims and factual support among the defendants. The court did not resolve the pending remand and dismissal motions or the threshold jurisdiction question; instead, it explained that the defective pleadings impeded those determinations.
The service ruling also preserves a path for a renewed application while identifying a specific evidentiary shortcoming: the plaintiffs had not documented attempts since July 2026 to serve the relevant domestic defendants despite the court’s prior identification of that deficiency. Any renewed request must state whether plaintiffs seek additional time, alternative means of service, or other relief.