A federal judge in Georgia has ordered a former competitive cheerleader who alleges being sexually abused by her coach to replead the case and potentially seek new counsel. The ruling, however, keeps alive the latest federal sex abuse lawsuit against Varsity Brands.

In an amended complaint filed last November, the alleged victim, identified only as Jane Doe, and her unnamed parents accuse a host of individuals and entities of facilitating the circumstances in which she says she was “sexually abused, raped, drugged, harassed, violated, pornographically filmed and molested” by her former coach, Charles Archibald Moore III.

The suit, which seeks $200 million in damages, was filed in the wake of Varsity’s settlements with dozens of similar sex-abuse plaintiffs who alleged being abused by cheer coaches and trainers in a youth sports system they contend was rife with opportunities for exploitation. Most of those cases were resolved by early 2024, shortly before Varsity was acquired by KKR.

This current civil action is the first to seek liability against the estate of former Varsity founder Jeff Webb, who died in March after suffering injuries while playing pickleball.

Filed initially in Georgia state court in September 2025, the lawsuit was moved to federal court last October. Its original complaint asserted 18 counts against 29 named and 500 unnamed defendants, including Varsity Brands, its cheerleading subsidiary, Varsity Spirit, Webb and two cheerleading organizing bodies—the U.S. All-Star Federation and USA Cheer.

Bain Capital, Varsity’s former parent company, was voluntarily dismissed earlier this year.

“It is voluminous, to say the least,” senior U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg wrote in an order issued last week.

The defendants had sought to dismiss the complaint, deriding it as a “shotgun pleading” that improperly lumped together numerous claims and defendants. Totenberg declined to toss the case, but suggested it was on shaky footing.

In her Sept. 10 order, Totenberg agreed with the defendants that the complaint contained a number of “material defects,” at one point comparing the plaintiffs’ approach to “throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.” She also questioned whether the plaintiffs’ attorneys had the experience or capacity necessary to handle complex federal civil litigation, citing their “somewhat slipshod handling of this case thus far.”

Still, Totenberg said that given the “gravity of the matter,” and the “concerning number of troubling allegations of abuse, fraud, corruption, collusion, negligence,” she didn’t want the procedural problems to prevent the plaintiffs’ right to “seek retribution for the deeply troubling harms they allegedly faced.”

At least for now.

Totenberg therefore gave the plaintiffs 40 days to file a new complaint and correct the deficiencies she identified. She also permitted, for the time being, the substitution of Webb’s estate for the deceased defendant. Webb’s probate case is proceeding in Shelby County, Tenn. To date, its docket reflects only relatively small claims filed by a credit card company and a utilities company. Totenberg said she would substantively address Jane Doe’s claims against Webb’s estate after reviewing the revised pleadings.

The judge encouraged the plaintiffs to seek new or additional attorneys who are more experienced in handling sex-abuse litigation, noting that one of the lawyers instead specializes in personal injury law.

In April, Moore, the accused coach, was handed a 25-year sentence, a dozen of which would be spent in prison, after pleading guilty to multiple felonies. He has already been found in default in Jane Doe’s civil action. Other named defendants include three all-star cheerleading gyms Moore worked at—Atlanta Jayhawks Grayson, Cheer & Dance Atlanta and Star Athletics Atlanta—and the Walton County (Ga.) School District, where Moore also coached.

Totenberg noted that she looked to other cheerleading sex-abuse cases to see “how to most effectively and fairly proceed,” but struggled to identify a relevant guide.

“After a thorough review, the court has been unable to find another case where similarly situated plaintiffs have brought as many claims against as many defendants as plaintiffs have sued here,” the judge wrote. “This puts the court in a challenging position.”

Furthermore, Totenberg said problems within the complaint itself had forced the court to “spend an unnecessarily lengthy amount of time deciphering the claims.” She warned the plaintiffs that, should they choose to refile, they should anticipate doing so under a “keen and sharp eye.”