Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00962/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00962-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

LORI ANN MORRIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:05cv962-MHT

) (WO)

FLORIDA TRANSFORMER and )

EDWARD NEAL THOMPSON, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case arises from a fatal car accident between

decedent Vernell Morris and defendant Edward Neal

Thompson. Plaintiff Lori Ann Morris, administratrix of

the estate of Vernell Morris, is suing Thompson and his

employer defendant Florida Transformer for wrongful

death; negligence; negligent hiring, training,

supervision, and retention; and negligent entrustment.

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

(diversity jurisdiction). 

Now before the court is the defendants’ motion for a

more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the

Case 3:05-cv-00962-MHT-SRW Document 32 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 4
2

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This provision states

in pertinent part that: 

“If a pleading to which a responsive

pleading is permitted is so vague or

ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably

be required to frame a responsive

pleading, the party may move for a more

definitive statement before interposing

a responsive pleading. The motion shall

point out the defects complained of and

the details desired.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). As grounds for the motion, the

defendants contend that they are unable to respond to

Morris’s complaint because it lacks a sufficient factual

background for the numerous regulatory violations alleged

as elements of the negligence claims. They request that

Morris be ordered to supply a specific factual basis for

each alleged regulatory infraction.

 A more definite statement is not required in this

matter for the reasons detailed below. It is well

established that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

require only a short and plain statement of the claim

that will give the defendant fair notice of what the

Case 3:05-cv-00962-MHT-SRW Document 32 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 4
3

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)

(internal quotations omitted). A plaintiff need not

“allege a specific fact to cover every element” of a

cause of action. Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice,

Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal

quotations omitted); see also St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc. v.

Hosp. Corp. of Am., 795 F.2d 948, 954 (11th Cir. 1986).

At a minimum, a complaint must “contain either direct or

inferential allegations respecting all the material

elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some

viable legal theory.” Aware Woman Ctr., 253 F.3d at 684

 The defendants’ motion for a more definite statement

is denied because it does not charge that Morris has

failed to provide sufficient notice of the claims for

which she is seeking relief or of the material elements

necessary for these claims. Instead it contends that she

has not provided an adequate factual basis for some of

the elements of her negligence claims. Under the liberal

Case 3:05-cv-00962-MHT-SRW Document 32 Filed 06/16/06 Page 3 of 4
notice-pleading standard, such enhanced factual details

need not be plead in the complaint, when as here, the

defendants are able to discern the claims asserted

against them. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendants’

motion for a more definite statement (Doc. No. 26) is

denied.

DONE, this the 16th day of June, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00962-MHT-SRW Document 32 Filed 06/16/06 Page 4 of 4