Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01411/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01411-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

15cv1411-JLS-BLM

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

THE ECLIPSE GROUP LLP, a California 

limited-liability partnership,

Plaintiff,

v.

TARGET CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15cv1411-JLS-BLM

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

(ECF No. 52)

Presently before the court is Defendants Target Corporation, Kmart Corporation, 

and Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“Defendants”)’ Motion for a More Definite Statement (“Statement 

Motion”), (ECF No. 52), regarding Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), (ECF 

No. 50).

1

 Defendants recount the instances of earlier litigation allegedly giving rise to the 

 

1 Defendants also attached to the Statement Motion a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of the 

Statement Motion (“Judicial Notice Request”). (ECF No. 52-2.) Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) 

provides that “[t]he court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: 

(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily 

determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” “Judicially noticed facts 

often consist of matters of public record, such as prior court proceedings . . . or other court documents.” 

Botelho v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 692 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citation omitted); see also

Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (The court “may 

take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record.”). While “[a] court may take judicial 

notice of the existence of matters of public record, such as a prior order or decision,” it should not take 

notice of “the truth of the facts cited therein.” Marsh v. San Diego Cty., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1043 (S.D. 

Case 3:15-cv-01411-RBM-BLM Document 59 Filed 09/30/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15cv1411-JLS-BLM

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

current fee dispute, (Statement Motion at 2–5), and argue that Plaintiff’s FAC fails to 

provide notice to Defendants of “their potential respective, individual liability in this case,”

thus placing in question the validity of Plaintiff’s current basis for subject matter 

jurisdiction, (id. at 5 (emphasis original)). The Court disagrees. 

A motion for a more definite statement is appropriate “[i]f 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 . . . .” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dean, 854 F. 

Supp. 626, 648–49 (D. Ariz. 1994) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e)). Howevever, “[s]uch 

motions are not favored by the courts,” and are “designed to strike at unintelligibility rather 

than want of detail.” Id. at 649 (citing A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Smith, 736 F. Supp. 

1030, 1032 (D. Ariz. 1989); Cox v. Me. Mar. Acad., 122 F.R.D. 115 (E.D. Mich. 1988);

Farah v. Martin, 122 F.R.D. 24, 25 (E.D. Mich. 1988); Woods v. Reno Commodities, Inc.,

600 F. Supp. 574, 580 (D. Nev. 1984)). Further, “where the information sought by the 

moving party is available and/or properly sought through discovery the motion should be 

denied.” Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, 525 F. Supp. 940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1981).

In the present case, Plaintiff’s FAC clearly states that in the underlying disputes 

Plaintiff represented Defendants as “a group of aligned parties,” (FAC ¶¶ 8, 9, 13, 14), and 

that the claims in the underlying disputes were asserted “against the aligned parties,” (id.

¶¶ 10, 15). Further, the Court has previously recognized that “it is plausible based on the 

evidence presented” that these aligned-group representations were conducted “for the 

benefit of all represented parties at once.” (See May 26, 2016 Order at 9–12, ECF No. 48 

(concluding that “[t]he evidence presented does not establish to a legal certainty that the 

amount in controversy against Toys ‘R’ Us is less than $75,000”)). Additional evidence 

as to the combined nature of the representations and the actual benefit conferred to each 

Defendant may well be at issue in discovery, but it need not be set forth here in the 

 

Cal. 2006). Accordingly, the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the three documents attached 

to Defendants’ Judicial Notice Request, but not the truth of the facts cited therein. 

Case 3:15-cv-01411-RBM-BLM Document 59 Filed 09/30/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15cv1411-JLS-BLM

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

pleadings.

Given the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has pled sufficient factual 

matter to apprise Defendants of the claims against them and the damages sought. 

Accordingly, Defendants Statement Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 30, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01411-RBM-BLM Document 59 Filed 09/30/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3