The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Zak Shaik against TokMedia Enterprises, LLC, and several of its employees. The court ruled that the lower court properly dismissed the case due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. This decision impacts Shaik, who claimed to have suffered significant financial losses due to TokMedia's failure to deliver marketing services as promised.

In November 2026, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case (docket number 26-10090) after Shaik, who represented himself, appealed a lower court's ruling. The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the standards required for plaintiffs to establish jurisdiction and adequately plead their claims in federal court.

Background

Zak Shaik is a wealth management service provider who entered into a marketing agreement with TokMedia in 2024. According to Shaik, TokMedia failed to deliver the promised marketing tools and services, resulting in a claimed loss of $625,000 in business opportunities. Shaik initially filed a lawsuit against TokMedia and another entrepreneur, Matthew Jones, in May 2025. However, the district court dismissed the complaint due to a lack of complete diversity among the parties, as both Shaik and Jones were citizens of Florida, just like TokMedia and its employees.

Following the dismissal, Shaik attempted to amend his complaint to remove Jones as a plaintiff. However, his amended complaint was criticized by the district court as a “shotgun pleading,” which is a disorganized and unclear legal document. The court found that Shaik's revised complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations and failed to comply with court orders regarding the filing of necessary documents.

The Ruling

The Eleventh Circuit, in its ruling, affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss Shaik's lawsuit. The court noted that Shaik's operative complaint did not adequately establish subject matter jurisdiction, particularly regarding the citizenship of the parties involved. The judges emphasized that federal courts require clear allegations of jurisdictional facts. The opinion stated, "Shaik’s complaint makes no allegation of any party’s citizenship."

The court further elaborated on the issues with Shaik's complaint, stating that it was a “shotgun pleading” that failed to connect factual allegations to legal claims. The judges also pointed out that Shaik had not complied with court orders to file a certificate of interested parties, which provided an additional basis for dismissal. The ruling highlighted that Shaik's failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation also limited his ability to challenge the dismissal on appeal.

Impact

This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of proper jurisdictional pleading in federal court. It underscores the requirement for plaintiffs to clearly establish the citizenship of all parties involved in a case to meet the diversity jurisdiction criteria. The court's decision also illustrates the consequences of failing to comply with procedural rules, as Shaik's repeated failures to follow court orders contributed to the dismissal of his case.

Going forward, this ruling may deter other plaintiffs from filing poorly constructed complaints and emphasizes the need for clarity and adherence to legal standards in federal litigation. It also serves as a cautionary tale for pro se litigants, who must still meet procedural requirements despite their self-representation.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Shaik plans to appeal the decision further or if he has any related cases pending. However, the ruling from the Eleventh Circuit is final unless further challenged in a higher court.