Santiesteban et al v. A-1 Entertainment Miami, LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1:24-23299-CIV-MARTINEZ/SANCHEZ
KASANDRA SANTIESTEBAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
A-1 ENTERTAINMENT MIAMI, LLC., et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter came before the undersigned on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Final Judgment
against Defendants XO Cabaret LLC, UB Direct LLC, and Michael Ricks, ECF No. 31, following
a referral from the Court to “take all necessary and proper action as required by law” with respect
to “[a]ll matters relating to” that motion, ECF No. 32.
On this date, the undersigned denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Final Judgment
because it is a shotgun pleading, because it fails to state claims against Defendants XO Cabaret
LLC, UB Direct LLC, and Michael Ricks, and because entry of a default judgment could result in
inconsistent judgments given that other defendants remain parties to the case and Plaintiffs are
seeking to hold all defendants jointly liable. See ECF No. 33 (Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Default Final Judgment Without Prejudice). 	The circumstances addressed in that Order,
particularly that the amended complaint is a shotgun pleading, also require the dismissal or striking
of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, even though no party has moved to strike or dismiss that
pleading. See, e.g., Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1357-58 (11th Cir. 2018).
However, because Plaintiffs have not been given an opportunity to address the deficiencies in their
amended complaint and because it is not apparent that Plaintiffs will be unable to remedy the
deficiencies in their amended complaint, Plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to amend their
amended complaint and remedy the deficiencies that have been identified. See, e.g., Vibe Micro,
Case 1:24-cv-23299-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2018) (“When a litigant files a shotgun pleading,
is represented by counsel, and fails to request leave to amend, a district court must sua sponte give
him one chance to replead before dismissing his case with prejudice on non-merits shotgun
pleading grounds.”).
Accordingly, after careful consideration of Plaintiffs’ filings, the record, and the applicable
law, and for the reasons discussed above and in the Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default
Final 	Judgment 	Without 	Prejudice 	(ECF 	No. 	33), 	the 	undersigned 	RESPECTFULLY
RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND,
allowing Plaintiffs to address the deficiencies that have been identified in the Order Denying
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Final Judgment Without Prejudice (ECF No. 33).
Within fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of this Report and Recommendation, the
parties shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the
Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge. 	Failing to file timely objections will
bar a de novo determination by the District Judge of any issue addressed in the Report and
Recommendation, will constitute a waiver of a party’s “right to challenge on appeal the district
court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” and will only allow appellate
review of the district court order “for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir.
R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d
790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); see also Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d
1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020).
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 12th day of
February 2026.
___________________________________
EDUARDO I. SANCHEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: 	Hon. Jose E. Martinez
Counsel of Record
Case 1:24-cv-23299-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2026 Page 2 of 2