Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01629/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01629-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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 NN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sam Salar, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Target Corporation; Sedgwick CMS;

Target Store 1429; Target Store 909, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1629-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt. 39) was filed September

10, 2007. They argue that Pro Se Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint violates Rules 8(a), 8(e),

and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the alternative, Defendants request that

Plaintiff amend the Complaint to comport with the aforementioned rules. Plaintiff’s

“Revised” First Amended Complaint (“Revised Amended Complaint”) was lodged in

response to the Motion to Dismiss. (Dkts. 41, 42). Defendants filed a motion to strike the

Revised Amended Complaint (“Motion to Strike”), arguing that Plaintiff did not move to

obtain leave of Court to file the Revised Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. 44).

Rule 8(a) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(e) requires that each averment in a pleading be “simple, concise,

and direct.” Plaintiff alleges two claims for relief in the 26-page Amended Complaint and

in the 31-page Revised Amended Complaint and neither comply with these requirements.

Case 2:06-cv-01629-EHC Document 52 Filed 04/21/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Many assertions in the complaint are merely conclusory allegations, and it appears there may

be more than two claims alleged; the lack of clarity makes it difficult to discern. The Court

also finds that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Revised Amended Complaint do not

adhere to Rule 10(b) which requires that all averments “be made in numbered paragraphs,

the contents of each of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a statement of a single

set of circumstances.”

Once a party has amended their pleading as a matter of course, Rule 15(a)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to grant leave for the filing of subsequent

amendments; it provides the Court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” The

Court will grant leave for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint. 

On October 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand and Restore Jurisdiction

Back in Superior Court (“Motion to Remand”) (Dkt. 40). Plaintiff argues that the amount

in controversy, which must exceed $75,000 to meet the diversity requirement, was “falsely

over priced” by Defendants, and therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 1332. However, Plaintiff requests compensation “in an exact amount of

$11,105.47" for medical expenses, and “in an exact amount of $73,522.50" for Plaintiff’s

time expended in filing the cause of action. (Amended Complaint, p. 18; Revised Amended

Complaint, p. 17) (emphases in original). Moreover, in Plaintiiff’s Disclosure for Trial

recently filed, Plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive damages totaling well into the

millions of dollars. (See Dkt. 49). The diversity requirement for this Court’s jurisdiction has

been met.

On April 16, 2008, Plaintiff filed two trial-related motions, one requesting

Defendants’ cooperation in discovery (“Motion for Discovery”) and the other requesting that

a trial date be set (“Motion to Set Trial Date”). (See Dkts. 47, 50). Both issues are premature

given the Court will grant leave for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 39) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (Dkt. 44) is granted.

Case 2:06-cv-01629-EHC Document 52 Filed 04/21/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended

Complaint which must comport with Rules 8(a), 8(e), and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The Second Amended Complaint must be filed within 60 days of the filing of this

Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Discovery (Dkt. 47) and the

Motion to Set Trial Date (Dkt. 50) are denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (Dkt. 40) is denied.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01629-EHC Document 52 Filed 04/21/08 Page 3 of 3