Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01376/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01376-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

Benjamin C. Esty, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

National Voluntary Health Facilities II,

Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1376-PHX-MHM

ORDER

 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement,

pursuant to FED R.CIV. Pro. 12(e). (Dkt. #23). Having reviewed the motion, the court issues

the following order.

I. Legal Standard 

A complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Rules 8(a) and 8(e)(1), taken together,

“underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules” and it

is largely within the trial courts’ discretion to enforce these rules. Ciralsky v. Cent.

Intelligence Agency, 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). The

complaint must be sufficient to put the opposing party on notice of the claim. Austin v.

Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004)(internal citation omitted). If the pleading “is

so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive

pleading,” the answering party may move for a more definite statement. FED.R.CIV.P.12(e).

Case 2:05-cv-01376-MHM Document 29 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

III. Discussion

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint contains an “Introduction” and “Summary of the

Action” section comprising four unnumbered paragraphs. Defendant argues these paragraphs

contain multiple averments that do not comply with FED.R.CIV.PRO. Rule 10(b). Plaintiffs

concede these paragraphs are redundant and deficient under Rule 10(b). While a Rule 12(e)

motion for a more definite statement is appropriate where the complaint is vague and

ambiguous, it also may be used to raise objections regarding non-compliance with Rule

10(b). See Jenn-Air Products Co. v. Penn Ventilator, Inc., 283 F. Supp. 591, 595 (E.D.

Pa.1968). As Plaintiffs readily admit their “Introduction” and “Summary of the Action”

paragraphs do not comply with Rule 10(b), the Court will grant the motion for a more

definite statement.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement,

pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 12(e) is GRANTED. (Dkt. #23).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs shall have 20 days from the date of this

order to file an amended complaint complying with this order.

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01376-MHM Document 29 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2