Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02365/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02365-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

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

1

The requests for oral argument are denied because the parties have fully briefed the

issues and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Lake

at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir.

1991); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John R. Quain, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Clear Channel Communications, Inc.;

KYOT Radio; and Russ Egan, Program

Director, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2365-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff is a member of the musical group Citizen Quain. He has been unable to get

his music played on local radio stations. He filed a pro se complaint against Defendants on

November 12, 2009. Dkt. #1.

Defendants have filed a motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #11. The motion is fully briefed. Dkt. ##13,

16. For reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion.1

I. The Need for a More Definite Statement.

A party may obtain a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) where the complaint

Case 2:09-cv-02365-DGC Document 21 Filed 02/25/10 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 -

is “so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(e). Having reviewed the complaint and the parties’ briefs, the Court agrees with

Defendants that a more definite statement of Plaintiff’s claims is required. Although the

complaint identifies federal statutes and case law, it does not contain a jurisdictional

statement. Nor does the complaint give each specific Defendant fair notice of the claim

asserted against it and the grounds for the claim.

Defendants’ motion sufficiently identifies the complaint’s defects and the details

desired. Dkt. #11. The Court will grant the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The Court

will require Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, providing a more definite statement of

his claims, by March 19, 2010.

II. Plaintiff’s Obligations.

Plaintiff must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”).

See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same

rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th

Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants “should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys

of record”); Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986)

(“Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he

litigates.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following Internet

website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil

Procedure may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office.

For purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “shall contain (1) a short and

plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (emphasis added).

These pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate and discrete paragraphs. The

paragraphs must be numbered in consecutive order. Each paragraph must be “simple,

Case 2:09-cv-02365-DGC Document 21 Filed 02/25/10 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 -

concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

Plaintiff is advised that vague references to antitrust violations, extortion, fraud, and

breach of contract are insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8. The

amended complaint must give each Defendant “fair notice of what [Plaintiff’s] claim is and

the grounds upon which it is based.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005).

This includes some factual basis for the claim and the specific legal theory supporting the

claim.

To survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the amended complaint must plead “enough

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “The plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility

that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” demanding instead sufficient factual allegations to

allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “Threadbare recitals

of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not

suffice.” Id.

Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to file an amended complaint by the March 19, 2010

deadline, the original complaint may be stricken and the case dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(e). Plaintiff is further warned that if he fails to prosecute this action, or if he fails to

comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement (Dkt. #11) is granted.

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by March 19, 2010.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary findings of facts and second discovery request

for production of documents (Dkt. #14) is denied.

4. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed to discovery and trial on the facts (Dkt. #18) is

denied.

Case 2:09-cv-02365-DGC Document 21 Filed 02/25/10 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 -

5. Defendants’ motion to strike sur-reply (Dkt. #19) is denied as moot.

DATED this 25th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02365-DGC Document 21 Filed 02/25/10 Page 4 of 4