Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03011/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

STEVEN R. BERNARD PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-3011

SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK; 

RAMSAY, BRIDGEFORTH, HARRELSON,

AND STARLING, LLP; ROSALIND

M. MOUSER; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE;

ONE UP DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 8th day of May, 2006, come on for consideration

the Motion By Ramsay, Bridgeforth, Harrelson And Starling LLP And

Rosalind M. Mouser (“The Ramsay Defendants”) For More Definite

Statement (document #2) and Motion By Simmons First National Bank

For More Definite Statement (document #5), and from said motions

(to which plaintiff has made no response), and an examination of

the Complaint, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint arises (basically) under the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. The

gravamen of the Complaint is the allegation that, after an

arbitration had resolved a debt dispute favorably to plaintiff,

Simmons continued to try to collect the debt, using the services

of the Ramsay firm and Mouser. 

2. The defendants complain of numerous puzzling references

in the Complaint to acronyms of unknown origin, antiquarian legal

theories, and plaintiff’s “throwing the entire Fair Debt

Case 3:06-cv-03011-JLH Document 9 Filed 05/08/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”) at the wall and hoping that

some of it sticks.” They request that the Court direct plaintiff

to replead, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(e).

3. While the Court is sympathetic to the problems inherent

in addressing confused - and confusing - statements in legal

pleadings, it does not believe that repleading would cure those

problems in this case. Rule 12(e), by its terms, is one designed

to require a plaintiff to offer more details to flesh out a vague

allegation, whereas here, what defendants are asking is that

plaintiff be required to say less. 

The Court believes that defendants can, in fact, frame

responsive pleadings, although they may simply have to deny

certain allegations as unintelligible. Plaintiff’s multiple

iterations of the same facts, and potpourri of legal theories,

many of which may have no relationship to the factual allegations,

do not alter the essential character of the Complaint as one

arising under the FDCA. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion By Ramsay,

Bridgeforth, Harrelson And Starling LLP And Rosalind M. Mouser

(“The Ramsay Defendants”) For More Definite Statement (document

#2) and Motion By Simmons First National Bank For More Definite

Statement (document #5) are denied, and defendants are directed to

file responsive pleadings to the Complaint of the plaintiff within

twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Case 3:06-cv-03011-JLH Document 9 Filed 05/08/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03011-JLH Document 9 Filed 05/08/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>