Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01267/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01267-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446nr Notice of Removal

---

1

17cv1267-JLS (JMA)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD B. WHEELER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICES; 

MORTGAGE LAW FIRM PLC,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv1267-JLS (JMA)

ORDER (1) VACATING HEARING 

AND TAKING MOTION FOR MORE 

DEFINITE STATEMENT UNDER 

SUBMISSION AND (2) GRANTING 

MOTION

(ECF No. 2)

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement (the 

“Motion”). (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion. Accordingly, the Court 

VACATES the hearing on the matter, currently set for August 24, 2017, and takes the 

matter under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides that: “A party may move for a more 

definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so 

vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must 

be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of 

Case 3:17-cv-01267-JLS-LL Document 3 Filed 08/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1267-JLS (JMA)

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

and the details desired.” “A Rule 12(e) motion is proper only if the complaint is so 

indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the claim being asserted, i.e., so 

vague that the defendant cannot begin to frame a response.” Jensen v. Quality Loan Serv. 

Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1188 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. 

Stores, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1981)).

The instant case was removed from state Small Claims Court, in which Plaintiff 

alleged only “[v]iolation of CA C.C.P. 2924.11 and 12 C.F.R. 1024.41, mortgage servicers 

are restricted from advancing foreclosure process if homeowner is securing a 

foreclosure[,]” and noted that he had “requeste[d] postponement of 5/17/17 foreclosure 

auction date in lieu of monetary damages for violation of CA CCP 2924 11 . . . .” (Notice 

of Removal Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-2.) This is insufficient to put Defendant on notice of

Plaintiff’s specific claims against it. Cf. Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, 525 F. Supp. 

940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1981) (noting that “[a] motion for a more definite statement should not 

be granted unless the defendant cannot frame a responsive pleading” and contrasting that 

circumstance with when “the information sought by the moving party is available and/or 

properly sought through discovery”); (see also Mot. for More Definite Statement 3 

(“Defendant does not know the actual claims at issue, when the actions occurred that gave 

rise to these claims, and cannot reasonably prepare a response.”).) Accordingly, the Court 

GRANTS Defendant’s request and ORDERS Plaintiff to, within thirty days of the date on 

which Plaintiff receives this Order, to file an Amended Complaint which complies with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the pleading standard announced in Bell Atlantic Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and expanded in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), 

and at a minimum states:

• A description of the alleged events upon which Plaintiff is bringing suit. 

• The details of the alleged violation(s) of Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.11 and 12 

C.F.R. §1024.41. 

• The details concerning the nature of Plaintiff’s debt, including the type of 

loan involved. 

• Any information concerning how Defendant’s acts or omissions caused 

Case 3:17-cv-01267-JLS-LL Document 3 Filed 08/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1267-JLS (JMA)

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

Plaintiff’s alleged harm. 

• The details concerning the amount of damages Plaintiff claims to have 

incurred as a result of Defendant’s alleged wrongful conduct.

(Mot. for More Definite Statement 3.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01267-JLS-LL Document 3 Filed 08/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3