Grace Solis v. Citibank, N.A.

── Grace Solis v. Citibank, N.A. ── Case No.: 25-12082 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 23, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12082 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/23/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12082 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ GRACE D. SOLIS, SHIRLEY SOLIS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus CITIBANK, N.A., CENLAR SERVICING, ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, SCHNEID, CRANE & PARTNERS, LLC, KIM STEVENS, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-21356-KMW ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-12082 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/23/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12082 Before JORDAN, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Grace Solis and Shirley Solis (“the Solises”) appeal from the district court’s grant of the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss their second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleging violations of the Flor- ida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), and a Florida criminal witness tampering statute. The Solises’ lawsuit arises out of acts the defendants alleg- edly committed related to a state foreclosure proceeding (based on an alleged default on a home equity line of credit) on the Solises’ homestead property. On appeal, the Solises argue that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing their SAC as a shotgun pleading without affording them an opportunity to amend their complaint a third time. They also argue that the district court erred by inde- pendently finding that some of their claims were barred by res ju- dicata. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I We review de novo a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plain- tiff. See Henley v. Payne, 945 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2019). We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to dis- miss a complaint as a shotgun pleading. See Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). USCA11 Case: 25-12082 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/23/2026 Page: 3 of 6 25-12082 Opinion of the Court 3 “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally con- strued.” Henley, 945 F.3d at 1327 (quoting Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)). However, this leni- ency does not give us “license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)). Complaints that are shotgun pleadings violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 10(b), or both. See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires the complaint to provide ‘a short and plain state-