Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00927/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00927-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alliance Labs, LLC, )) Plaintiff, ) 2:12-cv-00927 JWS ) vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION ) Stratus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ) [Re: Motion at Docket 35] ) Defendants. ))

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 35, defendant Stratus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Stratus” or “defendant”)

moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) for a more definite statement

of the complaint. Plaintiff Alliance Labs, LLC (“Alliance” or “plaintiff”) opposes at

docket 44, and defendant replies at docket 46. Oral argument was not requested and

would not assist the court. 

II. BACKGROUND

Alliance is an Arizona company that markets and distributes enema products,

including the Enemeez Mini Enema, the Enemeez Plus Mini Enema, and the Docusol

Mini Enema. Stratus is a Florida corporation that markets and distributes competing

enema products such as the Vacuant Mini-Enema and the Vacuant Plus Mini-Enema. 

Case 2:12-cv-00927-JWS Document 96 Filed 01/24/13 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

Alliance alleges that Stratus’s Vacuant products are “knock-offs” of its Enemeez

products. Alliance maintains that Stratus has targeted its customers and represented

Vacuant products to be less expensive than the Enemeez products, but equally

effective. Alliance alleges that Stratus uses packaging that is virtually indistinguishable

from the Enemeez packaging and that Stratus copied substantial portions of the

Enemeez brochure to promote Vacuant products. Alliance also alleges that Stratus has

misrepresented the number and quantities of active ingredients in the Vacuant products.

Alliance has asserted federal claims for false advertising under § 43(a)(1)(B) of

the Lanham Act (Count I), unfair competition under § 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act

(Count II), trademark infringement of Alliance’s registered ENEMEEZ and DOCUSOL

trademarks under § 32 of the Lanham Act (Count IV), and copyright infringement (Count

VI). Alliance has asserted state law claims for unfair competition (Count III), trademark

infringement (Count V), and unjust enrichment (Count VII). 

Stratus filed this motion for a more definite statement of the complaint, arguing

that it is a “shotgun” pleading that fails to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. It argues that it does not contain a short and plain statement

of the claims and contains lengthy paragraphs that are not limited to a single set of

circumstances. Alliance argues in response that this motion should not be allowed

under Rule 12(g)(2) because Stratus already brought a Rule 12 motion to dismiss. It

also argues that its complaint is not a “shotgun” pleading.

III. DISCUSSION

This Court concludes that Stratus’s 12(e) motion is procedurally improper. Under

Rule 12(g)(2), a party must consolidate all Rule 12 defenses in a single pre-answer

motion to dismiss. Rule 12(g)(2) applies to motions for a more definite statement

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-00927-JWS Document 96 Filed 01/24/13 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

brought under Rule 12(e).1 Therefore, Stratus waived its ability to challenge the

sufficiency of the complaint. 

Stratus urges the court to use its discretion to allow a Rule 12(e) motion or sua

sponte order a more definite statement of the complaint, arguing that the complaint is a

“shotgun” pleading that cannot be adequately answered. The court declines to do so. 

First, a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is disfavored and rarely granted

because of the minimal notice pleading requirements of the Federal Rules.2

 A

Rule 12(e) motion should be “ordinarily restricted to situations where a pleading suffers

from unintelligibility rather than want of detail.”3 Courts will require a more definite

statement only when the pleading is “so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party

cannot respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith or without prejudice to

himself.”4

 The court concludes that the First Amended Complaint does not suffer from

unintelligibility. Stratus is fairly notified of the nature of the claims and any missing

details could be obtained through discovery. 

Second, Alliance’s complaint is not a shotgun complaint simply because it

incorporates by reference previous allegations. A shotgun complaint is one in which a

plaintiff brings every conceivable claim against every conceivable defendant.5 For

1

See DiMaria v. Silvester, 89 F. Supp. 2d 195, 196 n.5 (D. Conn. 1999) (finding a

Rule 12(e) motion waived under Rule 12(g) “because defendants failed to consolidate it with

their previous Rule 12 motions to dismiss”); Clark v. Associates Commercial Corp., 149 F.R.D.

629, 632 (D. Kan. 1993) (stating that Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is not

exempt from the rule requiring consolidation of all Rule 12 defenses and objections). 

2

Margarita Cellars v. Pac. Coast Packaging, 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999); see

also Castillo v. Norton, 219 F.R.D. 155, 163 (D. Ariz. 2008) (noting the limited situations in

which a Rule 12(e) motion is appropriate). 

3

Castillo, 219 F.R.D. at 163 (internal quotations omitted). 

4

Margarita Cellars,189 F.R.D. at 578 (internal quotations omitted).

5

Gurman v. Metro. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 842 F.Supp.2d 1151, 1153 (D. Minn.

2011).

-3-

Case 2:12-cv-00927-JWS Document 96 Filed 01/24/13 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

example, in Shehee v. California6 the district court found the complaint to be a shotgun

complaint because the allegations in the complaint spanned more than twelve years,

encompassed three federal venues, and sought damages against more than thirty

named defendants, as well as “Does #1 through #100.” Alliance’s complaint is not

similarly broad, vague, or unintelligible. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, defendant’s motion at docket 35 is DENIED. 

DATED this 23rd day of January 2013.

 /s/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

2010 WL 4880698, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2010).

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-00927-JWS Document 96 Filed 01/24/13 Page 4 of 4