Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01181/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01181-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Liaosheng Zhang, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Honeywell International Inc., a Deleware

corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1181-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement (Dkt.

#6) and Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for a More

Definite Statement (Dkt. #12). 

BACKGROUND

On April 27, 2006, Plaintiff pro se, Liaosheng Zhang, filed a Complaint against

Defendant, Honeywell International, Inc., alleging that Defendant, her former employer,

violated her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") by discriminating

against her on the basis of race, national origin, gender, disability, and age. On August 22,

2006, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), Defendant filed a Motion for a

More Definite Statement requesting that Plaintiff amend her Complaint to specifically

identify the claims she is bringing against Defendant and the circumstances underlying those

Case 2:06-cv-01181-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

claims. Defendant claims a need for a more definite statement in order to frame a responsive

pleading to the Complaint. 

After Defendant filed its Motion for a More Definite Statement, Plaintiff filed a

Notice that she would respond to Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement within

twenty days (Dkt. #9). Plaintiff then submitted a Detailed Statement By Defendant Request

(Dkt. #10). The Court construes this document as Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion

for a More Definite Statement. Finally, Defendant filed a Reply in Support of its Motion for

a More Definite Statement or Alternatively a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's "Detailed

Statement." (Dkt. #12).

LEGAL STANDARD

The pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) are minimal. The Rule requires "a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P.

8(a)(2); see Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, the pleading

must "set[ ] forth who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail

to guide discovery." McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). "[P]ro se

pleadings should be read more liberally than pleadings filed by attorneys, and even if the

complaint is unartfully pleaded, the court should try to discern a cause of action." Williams

v. Holiday Inn, 295 F.Supp.2d 27, 29 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520 (1972)); see Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (same).

DISCUSSION

In her Compliant, Plaintiff asserts a Title VII cause of action alleging that Defendant

discriminated against her on the basis of race, national origin, gender, disability, and age.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Complaint does not provide enough information about

Plaintiff's claims and the facts underlying those claims to allow Defendant to formulate a

responsive pleading.

Based on this lesser standard for pro se petitioners, the Complaint sufficiently states

a claim under Title VII. The Complaint alleges that plaintiff, a female, Asian woman of

Case 2:06-cv-01181-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 4
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 - 3 -

Chinese national origin, who suffered from a disability 

as a result of her gender,

race, national origin, disability, and age. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that after Plaintiff's

employment was terminated, Defendant refused to hire her because of her gender, race,

national origin, disability, age, and because of her opposition to Defendant's unlawful

employment practices. Further, Plaintiff asserts that she has satisfied all of the procedural

and administrative requirements set forth in Section 706 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5,

thus meeting the exhaustion requirement for a Title VII cause of action. 

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e), a party may move for a more definite statement before

responding to the pleading when that pleading "is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot

reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading[.]" The motion is "'ordinarily

restricted to situations where a pleading suffers from unintelligibility rather than want of

detail, and if the requirements of the general rule as to pleadings are satisfied and the

opposing party is fairly notified of the nature of the claim such motion is inappropriate.'"

Sheffield v. Orius Corp., 211 F.R.D. 411, 414-15 (D.Or. 2002), quoting Tilley v. Allstate Ins.

Co., 40 F Supp 2d 809, 814 (S.D.W.Va. 1999); see also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gershman,

829 F.Supp. 1095, 1103 (E.D.Mo. 1993) ("Rule 12(e) provides a remedy for unintelligible

pleadings; it is not intended to correct a claimed lack of detail.").

As described above, Plaintiff's Complaint gives adequate notice to Defendant as to the

claims being asserted against it under Title VII. As a result, Defendant's Motion for a More

Definite Statement is denied. Moreover, the Court construes Plaintiff's Detailed Statement

by Defendant Request as Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for a More Definite

Statement, not as an amended complaint as Defendant asserts. Thus, Defendant's Motion to

Strike Plaintiff's "Detailed Statement" is denied. 

Pro se litigants are "entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an

opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action." Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245,

Case 2:06-cv-01181-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

248 (9th Cir. 1995); see Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (same);

see also Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 295 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We are very

cautious in approving a district court's decision to deny pro se litigants leave to amend.”)

(citing Lucas, 66 F.3d at 248-49); Waters v. Young, 100 F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1996)

("As a general matter, this court has long sought to ensure that pro se litigants do not

unwittingly fall victim to procedural requirements that they may, with some assistance from

the court, be able to satisfy.").

In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that she is entitled to relief under Title VII. Plaintiff

alleges that Defendant discriminated against her in a number of ways, including based on her

age. However, age discrimination is not covered under Title VII but, rather, is covered under

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff

30 days' leave to amend her complaint if she chooses. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement (Dkt. #6)

is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Detailed

Statement (Dkt. #12) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's request for oral argument is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the filing date

of this Order to amend her Complaint if she so chooses. If Plaintiff lodges an amended

complaint, the Clerk's Office is directed to file Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file a responsive pleading within

twenty days of the filing of the Amended Complaint or, if Plaintiff does not file an amended

complaint, within forty-five days of the filing date of this Order. 

DATED this 16th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01181-MHM Document 13 Filed 11/21/06 Page 4 of 4