I'm a big fan of page limits for briefs. Most times, when attorneys are forced to cut briefs back, the resulting brief is stronger overall than the original (assuming counsel doesn't do something crazy like dropping the whole facts section). The short, simple, easy-to-read arguments tend to be much more effective than the long and complex but easy-to-write arguments.
But not everybody agrees. Today we got an opinion from Chief Judge Connolly in Shelton v. Patton, C.A. No. 24-1338-CFC (D. Del.) where, in response to a motion to dismiss, counsel had sought to extend the page limits, and had then filled them with irrelevant material. The Court noted that they seemed to think that more = better:
The parties presented to me, and I regrettably signed, a stipulated order that allowed Shelton to file a consolidated Answering Brief of up to 18,469 words. D.I. 27. Most of the 18,176 words used by Shelton in his Answering Brief, see D.I. 28 at 83, were devoted to irrelevant, over-the-top argument. As just one example, Shelton dedicated pages 32 through 45 of his Answering Brief to a section called "Liberty Interests" that included sub-sections titled "How Liberty Interests are Created," "Part 1 - The Stigma," "Part 2 - The Plus," and "Devastating Impact on Future Employment Prospects is Established." All this, notwithstanding the fact that the Complaint does not allege a liberty interest-based Due Process claim. Notably, Shelton did not use a single word of his Answering Brief to cite or discuss Chenvert or Unger. Nor did he spill a single drop of ink to dispute that his Due Process claim fails if his contract claims fail.
The opening sentence of Shelton's Answering Brief is telling: "The 22-page, 162-paragraph, 5,555-word Complaint was filed on December 9, 2024 (D.I. 1), and timely service was achieved on December 16, 2024." D.I. 28 at 1. Shelton's counsel seems to think that more pages, paragraphs, and words are—to use his word—a "Plus."
Shelton v. Patton, C.A. No. 24-1338-CFC, at 8-9 n.2 (D. Del. Mar. 9, 2026).
My first thought was that the brief may have been drafted by AI. But, looking at the actual brief, nothing jumps out to me as being AI-generated.
As to the complaint, the Court noted the amount of irrelevant material and threatened to dismiss sua sponte if counsel amends without resolving the issue:
To be clear, the Complaint in this case reads more like a press release than a legal filing. It recounts, for example, how Shelton earned "several degrees" including "a Bachelors of Science in Health and Physical Education," and it lets us know that Shelton belongs to a Rotary Club and is an Honorary Commander of Dover Air Force Base. D.I. 1 at 2-3. None of these facts bears on the legal claims Shelton attempted to allege in the Complaint. I could go on, but suffice it to say that the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8's requirements that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement of the claim" and that "[e]ach allegation [in the complaint]... be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Should counsel attempt to file an amended complaint that does not comport with Rule 8, he should expect that I will sua sponte dismiss it.
Id. The Court also cut off the idea of further page limit extensions:
Counsel should also expect that I will no longer agree to requests to extend word limits for his briefs.
Id.
The long brief certainly did not help the plaintiff here. The Court ultimately granted the motion to dismiss on its merits.
Nor did the length of the complaint help. The plaintiff is a school superintendent that alleges breach of contract regarding his employment, and related due process claims. The Court found that the lengthy complaint had failed to allege that a single provision of the contract was breached:
Defendants argue that Counts III and IV fail as a matter of aw because the Complaint "merely makes conclusory allegations that the Board 'breached multiple terms of[each] contract' without citing to any particular term [of either contract] and linking it to any act of the Board." . . . I agree. Nowhere in the 162 paragraphs of the hyperbolic, painfully redundant, and irrelevancy-filled Complaint does Shelton ever identify an obligation in the 2020 contract or the contract extension that Defendants allegedly breached.
. . .
In sum, the Complaint alleges that Defendants breached "multiple terms" of the two contracts, but it does not identify a single term that was breached and does not allege any facts that plausibly imply that any Defendant breached any provision of either contract.
Id. at 5-6.
The Court went further, advising counsel to study up before attempting to amend the complaint:
[C]ounsel argues in the Answering Brief that the Board wrongfully suspended Shelton without pay and that "no provision of [the 2020] contract or District Policy provides for this type of suspension." . . . Counsel seems to think that to allege a cognizable contract claim, all you have to do is allege the existence of a contract and accuse the defendant of a wrongful act and then the burden switches to the defendant to find a provision in the contract that allows the defendant to perform that act. That's not how it works, and counsel is warned that before he tries to amend the Complaint or file another brief in this action, he needs first to study the basic tenets of contract law and the pleading requirements for cases in federal court.
Id. at 7-8. The Court likewise dismissed the due process claims, which were dependent on the contract claims. Id. at 8.
I have to think that a shorter but well-drafted complaint would have gone a long way here.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
