Mace, et al v. BMW Group Financial Services NA LLC, et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Kelley Justin Mace, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BMW Group Financial Services NA LLC, et
al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-04430-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Case or in the
Alternative to Strike the Complaint (Doc. 17) and the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension
of Time to File Response/Reply (Doc. 26). Further briefing is not necessary, as the Court
may sua sponte strike a pleading because it is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1).
I.
Courts will strike a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) if
Rule 8 is not satisfied. See, e.g., Liu v. Worldwide, No. 5:18-cv-02442-SVW-KK, 2019
WL 8690216, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2019). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires
that a pleading contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new
jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Case 2:25-cv-04430-MTL Document 27 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“[T]he Ninth Circuit has held that dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 is
proper where ‘the very prolixity of the complaint made it difficult to determine just what
circumstances were supposed to have given rise to the various causes of action.” Gottschalk
v. City & County of San Francisco, 964 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citing
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996)). The Ninth Circuit has adopted a
“shotgun pleading” rule, where pleadings that fall within the following categories run afoul
of Rule 8:
(1) a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the
allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to be a
combination of the entire complaint; (2) a complaint that is replete with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action; (3) a complaint that fails to separate into a different
count each cause of action or claim for relief; and (4) a complaint that asserts
multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the
defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the
defendants the claim is brought against.
Gibson v. City of Portland, No. 24-1663, 2026 WL 235118, at *16 (9th Cir. 2026).
In Liu, the Central District of California struck a 63-page complaint that “assert[ed]
legal arguments and conclusions as opposed to a short and plain statement of the relevant
facts and the legal cause of action premised on those facts.” Liu, 2019 WL 8690216, at *1.
The court found that the complaint was “replete with redundancies and appears to repeat
the same cause of action multiple times under slightly different legal theories.” Id.
II.
This case presents circumstances much similar to those in Liu. Plaintiffs’ complaint
is 218 pages—1,000 pages with exhibits—which is nearly four times as long as the
complaint that was struck in Liu. (Doc. 1.) Those pages are not organized, rendering it
impossible to discern exactly Defendants provided a non-exhaustive list of examples where
Plaintiffs re-asserts the same allegation several times. (Doc. 17 at 5-6.) In one instance,
they did so eleven times. Id. The Complaint buries the elements of the thirteen alleged
counts beneath statutory expositions and argumentative narrative, making it impossible to
Case 2:25-cv-04430-MTL Document 27 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
discern which factual allegations support which cause of action. (Doc. 1.) Because the
Complaint 	“is 	replete 	with 	conclusory, 	vague, 	and 	immaterial 	facts 	not 	obviously
connected to any particular cause of action,” it is the type of shotgun pleading that the
Ninth Circuit identifies as subject to dismissal under Rule 8. Gibson, 2026 WL 235118, at
*16. The Court finds that because of the verbose, redundant, and confusing nature of the
Complaint, Defendants cannot adequately defend themselves because they do not have fair
notice of the claims being asserted against them. Lapena v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t,
No. 2:21-CV-2170, 2024 WL 1345226, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2024) (citations omitted)
(“The complaint is ‘so mired in extraneous facts, various issues related and unrelated, and
legal arguments that it fails to comply with Rule 8(a),’ and it is not the court’s duty to
‘wade through exhibits’ or prolix allegations ‘to determine whether cognizable claims have
been stated.’”).
Defendants may be right that this case is about a simple vehicle repossession.
(Doc. 17 at 2.) But the Court is not compelled to sift through Plaintiffs’ incomprehensible
complaint to find out. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir.
2011) (“[O]ur district courts are busy enough without having to penetrate a tome
approaching 	the 	magnitude 	of 	War 	and Peace 	to 	discern 	a plaintiff’s 	claims 	and
allegations.”). Because the majority of the Complaint is verbose, redundant, and confusing,
the Court will grant Defendants’ motion (Doc. 17). The Court will strike the Complaint
(Doc. 1) in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), and the Court will
afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to cure the deficiency.
III.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Case or in the Alternative
to Strike the Complaint (Doc. 17) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking the Complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs must cure
the deficiency no later than February 26, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time
to File Response/Reply (Doc. 26) is DENIED as moot.
Case 2:25-cv-04430-MTL Document 27 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that on February 27, 2026, the Clerk of Court must
dismiss this case, without prejudice, and enter judgment accordingly if Plaintiffs do not file
an amended complaint.
Dated this 13th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-04430-MTL Document 27 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 4