Wing Kei Ho v. Northland Lugano, LLC

── Wing Kei Ho v. Northland Lugano, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-13723 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13723 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ WING KEI HO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NORTHLAND LUGANO, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:24-cv-81093-AMC ____________________ Before ABUDU, TJOFLAT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Wing Ho, proceeding pro se, filed a twenty-five-page com- plaint with a seventy-eight-page attachment consisting of copies of pleadings and other documents apparently filed in two cases in the USCA11 Case: 24-13723 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13723 Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida––one brought by a third party against Northland Lugano, the other by Northland Lu- gano against Ho. The complaint, a quintessential shotgun pleading, see Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015); U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Spartan Sec. Grp., Ltd., 164 F.4th 1231, 1274–83 (11th Cir. 2026) (Tjoflat, J., dissenting), was absolutely unintelligible, and the attachment was so bereft of legal significance as to amount to nothing more than a weekly newspa- per. The District Court dismissed Ho’s original complaint with leave to amend under Rule 12(b)(6), as it was required to do. See Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1133 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[I]f, in the face of a shotgun complaint, the defendant does not move the dis- trict court to require a more definite statement, the court, in the exercise of its inherent power, must intervene sua sponte and order a repleader.”). Ho then filed a thirty-nine-page amended complaint––along with the same attachments––which was just as unintelligible as the original. Nonetheless, the District Court, acting on its own initia- tive, interpreted the amended complaint as seeking recovery for theft and conversion and dismissed it under the Rooker-Feldman 1 doctrine for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Ho now appeals. 1 See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983). USCA11 Case: 24-13723 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 3 of 3 24-13723 Opinion of the Court 3 Ho’s amended complaint does not satisfy Rule 8(a)(1) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The District Court should have dismissed it as a shotgun pleading under Rule 12(b)(6). See Byrne, 261 F.3d at 1133 (“[I]f the plaintiff fails to comply with the court’s [repleader] order—by filing a re- pleader with the same deficiency—the court should strike his pleading or, depending on the circumstances, dismiss his case.”). This would have saved valuable judicial resources at the district court level. We therefore vacate the District Court’s judgment and