Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07657/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07657-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIYONG MOON and CRAIG STANFORD,

individually, and on behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX KINKO’S OFFICE AND PRINT

SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-10,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-7657 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE

STATEMENT

Defendant Kinko’s Office and Print Services, Inc. (“Kinko’s”) has filed a motion for a more

definite statement, which is currently scheduled for a hearing at 9:00 a.m. on March 23, 2007. Pursuant

to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral

argument and VACATES the hearing. After consideration of the parties’ papers, and for the reasons

set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion. The Case Management Conference

scheduled for 2:00 p.m. remains on calendar.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “if the pleading to which a responsive

pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a

responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive

pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). 

Case 3:06-cv-07657-SI Document 23 Filed 03/20/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs filed this action under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), 15

U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide

class of consumers. First Amended Complaint ¶ 4. Plaintiffs allege that Kinko’s has violated Section

1681c(g) of the FACTA by “print[ing] the expiration date and/or print[ing] more than the last five digits

of Plaintiffs’ credit card or debit card numbers on the receipts provided to Plaintiffs at the point of a sale

or transaction between Plaintiffs and FEDEX KINKO’S.” Id. ¶ 10. 

Defendant has moved for a more definite statement based upon the complaint’s use of “and/or”

in the above-quoted allegation. Defendant contends that plaintiffs fail to specify what type of

information was allegedly printed on defendant’s receipts, and that the use of “and/or” is too vague and

ambiguous to enable defendant to file a response. Defendant’s counsel has also submitted a declaration

stating that in a meet and confer session with plaintiffs’ counsel, plaintiffs’ counsel stated that “his

clients received receipts from Defendant that did not print out more than the last five digits of credit or

debit card numbers,” but that plaintiffs would not agree to revise the complaint to eliminate or clarify

the “and/or” allegation. Westheimer Decl. ¶ 2.

The Court finds that plaintiffs’ allegations sufficiently put defendant on notice of plaintiffs’

claims such that defendant can file a responsive pleading. Plaintiffs have alleged that defendant violated

the FACTA in one of two specific ways: by printing receipts that contain the expiration date, and/or by

printing receipts that contain more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card. The use of “and/or”

does not render this allegation vague because plaintiffs identify the conduct at issue. To the extent

defendant suggests plaintiffs have not adequately investigated their claims, those arguments are

misplaced in a motion for a more definite statement. However, the Court finds that while the complaint

meets the federal requirements for notice pleading, plaintiffs should be mindful of their Rule 11

obligations; if plaintiffs do not have a factual basis for certain allegations, plaintiffs should amend the

Case 3:06-cv-07657-SI Document 23 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Defendant also asserts that plaintiffs’ counsel have filed numerous similar cases under the

FACTA and used nearly identical “boilerplate” language. Although the Court GRANTS defendant’s

request for judicial notice of pleadings filed in these other cases, the Court also finds that the existence

of these other actions is irrelevant to the question presented by the instant motion.

3

complaint accordingly.1 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion for a more definite

statement. (Docket No. 13). The Court GRANTS defendant’s request for judicial notice. (Docket No.

21). Defendant is directed to file a responsive pleading within 10 days of the filing date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2007 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07657-SI Document 23 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 3