Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01850/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01850-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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 

Dancesport Videos, LLC, an Arizona 

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

James and Jaana Kunitz, husband and wife; 

and Digital Video Creations, LLC, an 

Arizona limited liability company, Body 

FX, LLC, a Nevada limited liability 

company, 

Defendants.

No. CV11-1850-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging twelve claims against Defendants. Doc. 1. In 

lieu of a response, Defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement under Federal 

Rules Civil Procedure 12(e). Doc. 24. The motion is fully briefed and no party has 

requested oral argument. Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is granted. 

Under Rule 12(e), if a complaint is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot 

reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the defendant may move for an 

order requiring a more definite statement by pointing out the defects complained of and 

the details desired. Bautista v. County of L.A., 216 F.3d 837, 843 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Having reviewed the compliant and the parties’ briefs, the Court agrees that a more 

definite statement of the Plaintiff’s claim is required. The complaint does not identify 

specifically where the alleged trademark related claims occurred. Nor does it identify 

specific copyright registrations that were allegedly infringed or clearly identify the 

Case 2:11-cv-01850-DGC Document 40 Filed 02/29/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

infringing party. 

Defendants’ motion sufficiently identifies the complaint’s defects and the details 

desired. Doc. 24. The Court will grant the motion. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement (Doc. 24) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by March 15, 2012. 

Dated this 29th day of February, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01850-DGC Document 40 Filed 02/29/12 Page 2 of 2