Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05126/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05126-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Declaratory Judgement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Chimyere McCall, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Damon Charles Williams, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-05126-PHX-SMB

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion For A More Definite Statement, 

(Doc. 33). Being unopposed, Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

On January 8, 2020, Plaintiffs petitioned the Court to order Defendants to amend 

their counterclaim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). (Doc. 33.) Pointing 

to three paragraphs in Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiffs argue Defendants’ counterclaim: (1) 

fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)’s requirement that pleadings be “short and plain statements 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”; and (2) were too vague and ambiguous to 

allow Plaintiffs’ to respond. (Doc. 33 at 4-6.) Defendants had fourteen (14) days to 

respond.1 See LRCiv. 7.2(c). Twenty (20) days passed without response. On January 28, 

2020, recognizing Defendants’ pro se status, the Court issued a cautionary order extending 

Defendants’ deadline to February 3, 2020. (See Doc. 35.) The Court reminded Defendants 

1 LRCiv. 7.2(c) provides a party, like Defendants here, “fourteen (14) days after service in 

a civil or criminal case within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum.” LRCiv. 

7.2(c).

Case 2:19-cv-05126-SMB Document 45 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

to “take notice that failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion by the deadline set forth in this 

Order will result in the Court deeming Plaintiff’s Motion as being unopposed and 

consented to by Defendants.” (Id. (citing Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 

1994).) Defendants responded on February 5, 2020. (Doc. 38.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

LRCiv. 7.2(c) requires an opposing party to file and serve responsive motions within 

fourteen (14) days of receiving service of the initial motion. When an “unrepresented party 

or counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court 

may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i). Further, Rule 12(e) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to “move for a more definite statement of a pleading 

to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the 

party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Following a party’s motion, a court may order 

a more definite statement and “require such detail as may be appropriate in the particular 

case ....” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). 

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants twice failed to comply with Local Rules. First, they failed to file a 

response within fourteen (14) days of Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court granted them an 

additional twelve (12) days beyond that allowed by LRCiv. 7.2(c) and explicitly warned 

Defendants that further failure to comply would be interpreted as a consent to Plaintiffs’ 

motion. Ultimately, the Court’s leniency made no difference and Defendants eventual 

response was untimely. Defendants’ were expressly warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance and provided ample opportunity to comply. The Court will deem their 

failure to timely file a response as a consent to Plaintiffs’ motion and consider the motion 

unopposed. 

Although motions for a more definite statement are generally disfavored given the 

minimal pleading requirements of the Federal Rules, a Rule 12(e) motion is proper “where 

the complaint is so indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the claim 

Case 2:19-cv-05126-SMB Document 45 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

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

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

A motion filed pursuant to Rule 12(e) “must point out the defects complained of and the 

details desired.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). By contrast, In making “a claim to recover 

damages,” Defendants’ counterclaim merely references the subject matter of the complaint,

(Doc. 28 at 9, ⁋⁋ 6-10), but gives “no indication of any theory of liability under which 

Defendants are asserting new counterclaims against Plaintiffs,” (Doc. 33 at 5). See Sagan, 

874 F.Supp. at 1077 (“[A] Rule 12(e) motion is more likely to be granted where the 

complaint is so general that ambiguity arises in determining the nature of the claim or the 

parties against whom it is being made.”) While the “pleading requirements of the Federal 

Rules” are “minimal,” id., they require more than Defendants’ Answer provides. As 

discussed, Plaintiffs’ motion is unopposed and will be granted.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion and order Defendants to amend their 

Answer2in a manner consistent with this Order. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiffs’ Motion For A More Definite Statement, 

(Doc. 33). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Defendants leave to amend their 

Answer and STRIKING their Amended Answer, (Doc. 34). Defendants have fourteen (14) 

days from the date of this Order to file a new amended answer. 

Dated this 28

th day of April, 2020. 

2 Defendants’ Amended Answer, (Doc. 34), filed after Plaintiffs’ instant motion, contains 

a counterclaim identical to that found in Defendants’ Answer, (Doc. 28), and does not 

affect this Court’s analysis. 

Case 2:19-cv-05126-SMB Document 45 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 3