Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_15-cv-00105/USCOURTS-alnd-1_15-cv-00105-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

EDWARD STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

URS ENERGY &

CONSTRUCTION, INC., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-CV-0105-VEH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Edward Stone (“Mr. Stone”) initiated this action against Defendant

URS Energy & Construction, Inc. (“URS”),1

in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County,

Alabama, on November 12, 2014. (Doc. 1-1 at 4).2 Mr. Stone filed a second complaint

in state court on December 11, 2014. (Id. at 17-21). URS removed the lawsuit to

federal court on January 21, 2015, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 1;

id. at 3 ¶ 6). 

Pending before the court is URS Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 4)

1 Mr. Stone actually sued “New AR Corporation,” but pursuant to the court’s order of

substitution (Doc. 8) entered on February 24, 2015, the correctly named defendant is URS Energy

& Construction, Inc. 

2 All page references to Doc. 1-1 correspond with the court’s CM/ECF numbering system.

FILED

 2015 Feb-24 PM 01:44

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:15-cv-00105-VEH Document 9 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 5
(the “Motion”) filed on January 28, 2015. Mr. Stone never has filed any opposition

to the Motion, which under Appendix III to the court’s uniform initial order (Doc. 2)

was due on February 11, 2015. (See Doc. 2 at 23 ¶ B.2 (“The opponent’s responsive

brief shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) calendar daysthereafter.”)). Moreover,

although Mr. Stone filed an amendment to his complaint (Doc. 7) on February 20,

2015, he limited the scope of that modification to simply substituting for the correct

name of the defendant. (See Doc. 7 at 1 (“amend[ing] his complaint to more properly

identify the defendant [only] . . .”)). Against this backdrop, the Motion is now ready

for disposition, and, for the reasons explained below, is GRANTED. 

II. Standards

A. Rule 12(e)

Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement. 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 and

the details desired. If the court orders a more definite statement and the

order is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or within the

time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other

appropriate order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).

As the former Fifth Circuit has explained the standard on motions for a more

2

Case 1:15-cv-00105-VEH Document 9 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 5
definite statement:

The motion for more definite statement, on the other hand, involves,

within the applicable standards of that rule, the exercise of that sound

and considered discretion committed unavoidably and properly to the

Trial Judge as he presides over the continuous process of adjudication

from commencement of the litigation through pleadings, pretrial

discovery, trial, submission and decision.

Under 12(e) the Court must determine whether the complaint is

such that ‘a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive

pleading.’But the fact that a careful Judge, in the exercise of that wise

discretion controlled by the prescribed principles of that rule, might so

conclude does not permit him to dismiss the complaint for failure to

state a claim. ‘It may well be that petitioner’s complaint as now drawn

is too vague, but that is no ground for dismissing his action. * * *.’ Glus

v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 1959, 359 U.S. 231, 79 S. Ct.

760, 763, 3 L. Ed. 2d 770, 774.

Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 130 (5th Cir. 1959).3

B. Mr. Stone’s Failure to Oppose

Mr. Stone’s failure to file any opposition does not automatically mean that the

Motion is due to be granted. As explained by Judge Steele in Branch Banking and

Trust Co. v. Howard, No. 12–0175–WS–N, 2013 WL 172903, *1 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 16,

2013), in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that was unopposed by the nonmovant:

3

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the

Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down

prior to October 1, 1981.

3

Case 1:15-cv-00105-VEH Document 9 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 5
As noted, Churchill and Howard elected not to be heard in

response to BB & T’s Amended Motion to Dismiss. Notwithstanding

that omission, BB & T (as Rule 12(b)(6) movant) bears the initial

burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to dismissal of the

counterclaims. Churchill’s and Howard’s lack of response to the Rule

12(b)(6) Motion does not trigger the kneejerk granting of such Motion

on an abandonment theory. See Gailes v. Marengo County Sheriff’s

Dep’t, 2013 WL 81227, *5 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 4, 2013) (“the Court will not

treat a claimas abandoned merely because the plaintiff has not defended

it in opposition to a motion to dismiss”). Rather, it remains BB & T’s

burden as movant to establish its entitlement to relief under Rule

12(b)(6). In light of these circumstances, the Courtscrutinizes BB & T’s

Motion to Dismissin accordance with the following legalstandard: “the

Court will review the merits of the [movant]’s position and, if it is

clearly incorrect or inadequate to satisfy the [movant]’s initial burden,

will deny the motion despite the [nonmovant]’s failure to respond. If,

however, the [movant]’s presentation is adequate to satisfy its initial

burden, the Court will not deny the motion based on arguments the

[nonmovant] could have made but by silence elected not to raise.” Id.

Branch Banking, 2013 WL 172903, *1 (footnotes omitted).

III. Analysis

The court has studied the allegations of Mr. Stone’s most recently filed state

court pleading (Doc. 1-1 at 17-21), which containstwo counts. Count I allegesin part

that URS owes him a “retention bonus [that] equals or exceeds $90,000.00 . . . .”

(Doc. 1-1 at 18). Count II asserts that URS owes Mr. Stone “in addition to the

benefitsset out in Count I of this complaint, the sum of approximately $12,000.00 ...

[in] severance benefits.” (Doc. 1-1 at 20 ¶ 15); see also (Doc. 4 at 2 (“Plaintiff’s

Complaint contains two counts seeking damages for the alleged failure to pay a

4

Case 1:15-cv-00105-VEH Document 9 Filed 02/24/15 Page 4 of 5
‘retention bonus’ and ‘severance payment.’”)). 

However, missing from Mr. Stone’s complaint are any “specific law(s) that he

alleges URS [has] violated [i.e., federal, state, or both] and the specific cause(s) of

action he is asserting [under such law(s)].” (Doc. 4 at 2). Additionally, Mr. Stone

confusingly alleges at the beginning of his complaint that he is seeking “worker’s

compensation benefits” (Doc. 1-1 at 17), even though factually he makes no reference

to any on-the-job personal injury that he has suffered. Accordingly, the court agrees

with URS that requiring Mr. Stone to file a more definite statement of his claims,

including the identification within each count of the specific federal and/or state

law(s) which he maintains URS has violated, is appropriate. 

Each one of Mr. Stone’s claims against URS needs to be pled in a separate

court. Further, the deadline for Mr. Stone to provide a more detailed complaint is on

or before March 9, 2015. Finally, the failure to replead as required herein may result

in a dismissal of Mr. Stone’s case without prejudice.

IV. Conclusion

Thus, URS’s Motion is GRANTED and, Mr. Stone is HEREBY ORDERED

to replead his complaint on or before March 9, 2015.

DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of February, 2015.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

5

Case 1:15-cv-00105-VEH Document 9 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 5