Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02720/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02720-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

16-CV-2720-AJB-RBB 

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

ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

URBAN HOUSING PARTNERS, INC., 

A California Corporation; SHERMAN D. 

HARMER, An Individual; 1907 

COLUMBIA, LLC, A California Limited 

Liability Company, DOES 1 through 20, 

Inclusive, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-2720-AJB-RBB

ORDER DENYING 1907 

COLUMBIA, LLC’S MOTION FOR 

MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

(Doc. No. 4)

Presently before the Court is Defendant 1907 Columbia, LLC’s (“1907 Columbia”) 

motion for more definite statement. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff Admiral Insurance Company 

(“Admiral Insurance”) opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 8.) Defendants Urban Housing 

Partners, Inc. (“Urban Housing”) and Sherman D. Harmer (“Harmer”) do not oppose the 

motion. (Doc. No. 12.) Having reviewed the parties’ moving papers and controlling legal 

authority, and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the matter suitable for 

decision on the papers and without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing date currently 

Case 3:16-cv-02720-AJB-RBB Document 13 Filed 12/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-CV-2720-AJB-RBB 

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

set for March 2, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3B is hereby VACATED. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 1907 Columbia’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Through its complaint, Admiral Insurance seeks a declaratory judgment that it has 

no duty to defend or insurance coverage available for a civil suit currently pending in San 

Diego Superior Court between 1907 Columbia as plaintiff and Urban Housing and Harmer

as defendants, among others. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 5 ¶ 1.) For present purposes, it suffices to 

say that Admiral Insurance is currently defending Urban Housing and Harmer in the 

underlying litigation pursuant to a professional liability insurance policy. (Id. at 5–6 ¶ 1.)

Admiral Policy filed the instant action in San Diego Superior Court on October 7, 

2016. (Doc. No. 1 at 2 ¶ 1.) In the complaint in this case, and central to the instant dispute, 

Admiral Insurance relies on, inter alia, portions of Urban Housing’s policy applications 

and website for the proposition that Admiral Insurance has no duty to defend Urban 

Housing and Harmer in the suit filed by 1907 Columbia. (See Doc. No. 1-2 at 7–8 ¶¶ 11–

13.) Urban Housing and Harmer removed this action to this Court on November 2, 2016. 

(Doc. No. 1.) On November 21, 2016, 1907 Columbia filed the instant motion for more 

definite statement. (Doc. No. 4.) Admiral Insurance opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 8.) 1907 

Columbia replied, (Doc. No. 11), and Urban Housing and Harmer filed a nonopposition, 

(Doc. No. 12). This order follows. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides for a more definite statement only 

where a pleading “is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a 

response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Given the liberal pleading standards applicable under the 

federal rules, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, Rule 12(e) motions are “viewed with disfavor and are 

rarely granted,” Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994).

Even when properly asserted, “[a] motion for a more definite statement attacks 

intelligibility, not simply lack of detail,” Gregory Vill. Partners, L.P. v. Chevron, USA, 

Inc., 805 F. Supp. 2d 888, 896 (N.D. Cal. 2011), and will be granted “only if the [challenged 

Case 3:16-cv-02720-AJB-RBB Document 13 Filed 12/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-CV-2720-AJB-RBB 

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

pleading] is so indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the claim being 

asserted, meaning the [pleading] is so vague that the defendant cannot begin to frame a 

response,” Craigslist, Inc. v. Autoposterpro, Inc., No. CV 08 05069 SBA, 2009 WL 

890896, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2009). Reciprocally, where a pleading “is specific 

enough to [apprise] the responding party of the substance of the claim [or defense] being 

asserted or where the detail sought is otherwise obtainable through discovery, a motion for 

a more definite statement should be denied.” Fernandez v. Centric, No. 3:12-cv-00401-

LRH (WGC), 2013 WL 310373, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 24, 2013) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

1907 Columbia’s argument is predicated on the following proposition: Because the 

complaint relies on only excerpted portions of Urban Housing’s website and application, 

the complaint is incomplete and thus rendered vague and ambiguous within the meaning 

of Rule 12(e). (Doc. No. 4.) Admiral Insurance retorts that because 1907 Columbia merely 

seeks additional detail obtainable through discovery, the motion for more definite 

statement should be denied. (Doc. No. 8.)

1907 Columbia’s position finds no support in Ninth Circuit case law.1 As noted 

above, granting a Rule 12(e) motion is appropriate “only if the [challenged pleading] is so 

indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the claim being asserted, 

meaning the [pleading] is so vague that the defendant cannot begin to frame a response.” 

Craigslist, Inc., 2009 WL 890896, at *4. Having reviewed the allegations of the complaint, 

the Court does not find the complaint to be unintelligible or so vague that 1907 Columbia

cannot begin to frame a response. Rather, the intimate familiarity with this dispute that 

1907 Columbia’s moving papers suggest belies any suggestion that the complaint is too 

vague for 1907 Columbia to frame a proper response. 1907 Columbia’s motion for more 

 

1 The Court reminds 1907 Columbia that this Court sits within the Ninth Circuit; 

accordingly, authority from the Ninth Circuit and within the Ninth Circuit should be cited.

1907 Columbia’s moving papers are practically devoid of citation to such authority.

Case 3:16-cv-02720-AJB-RBB Document 13 Filed 12/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-CV-2720-AJB-RBB 

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

definite statement is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to obtain discovery through 

the pleadings. This the Court will not permit.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES 1907 Columbia’s motion for more 

definite statement. (Doc. No. 4.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02720-AJB-RBB Document 13 Filed 12/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4