Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01397/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01397-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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 - 07CV1397-LAB (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN BREITENSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV1397-LAB (BLM)

ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS

TO STRIKE AND FOR A MORE

DEFINITE STATEMENT

vs.

MONACO COACH CORPORATION,

et al.

Defendants.

On August 3, 2007, Defendant Cummins, Inc. (“Cummins”) filed a motion for a more

definite statement, and a motion to strike portions of the complaint. On August 7, 2007,

Defendant Monaco Coach Corporation (“Monaco Coach”) filed a motion for a more definite

statement. The hearing on all three motions was set for September 17, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.

On August 8, Defendant Cummins amended both its motions. On August 28, 2007, Plaintiff

amended his complaint.

On September 6, 2007, in light of the amended complaint, Monaco Coach withdrew

its motion for a more definite statement. On September 7, 2007, Defendant Cummins

withdrew its motion to strike, but indicated its intention that its motion for a more definite

statement should proceed as before, and should apply to the amended complaint. On

September 7, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to one of the motions for a more definite

statement (apparently Cummins’). Its opposition is, however, being rejected by discrepancy

order. 

Case 3:07-cv-01397-LAB-BLM Document 18 Filed 09/12/07 Page 1 of 2
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 - 07CV1397-LAB (BLM)

Thus, of the three motions filed, the only one not withdrawn and therefore still pending

is Defendant Cummins’ amended motion for a more definite statement (docket #10).

Ordinarily, the filing of an amended complaint would moot such a motion. Datastorm Techs.,

Inc. v. Excalibur Communications, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 112, 114 (N.D.Cal. 1995). However,

Defendant Cummins has expressed its intention to continue with its previously-filed motion

for a more definite statement. On September 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading styled

“Response to Notice of Non-opposition to Cummins Inc.’s Motion for More Definite

Statement” in which he argues Defendant Cummins’ motion for a more definite statement

should be considered moot.

In view of Defendant Cummins’ request, the Court construes Defendant Cummins’

amended motion for a more definite statement, filed August 8, 2007 as applying to the

amended complaint. In order to give Plaintiff an opportunity to oppose this pending motion,

the hearing is hereby CONTINUED from September 17, 2007 to Monday, October 22, 2007

at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff’s opposition is due Friday, October 5, 2007, and Defendant

Cummins’ reply is due Monday, October 15, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01397-LAB-BLM Document 18 Filed 09/12/07 Page 2 of 2