Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00912/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00912-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 

Samsung Medison America Incorporated, a 

California corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AmeriaMed East LLC, an Arizona limited 

liability company; RDL Medical 

Incorporated, an Arizona corporation, 

Defendants, 

v. 

Bank of America, NA, 

 Garnishee.

No. CV-13-00912-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Defendant AmeriaMed East, LLC’s (“AME”) 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 42) and Defendant RDL Medical Inc.’s (“RDL”) Motion for 

More Definite Statement (Doc. 43). For the following reasons, both AME’s Motion to 

Dismiss (Doc. 42) and RDL’s Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 43) are denied. 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff Samsung Medison America, Inc. (“Samsung”) filed suit against 

Defendants for the principal sum of $404,134.72, owed to them “[a]s a result of open 

account purchases.” (First Amended Complaint, Doc. 14 at 2.) Default judgment was 

entered against Defendants by the Clerk of the Court (Doc 19), but later set aside (Doc 

Case 2:13-cv-00912-DJH Document 46 Filed 01/10/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

39). After the order from the Court setting aside the default judgment Defendants filed 

the two motions at issue here. 

AME’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

 A. Legal Standard

 “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a ‘short 

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ‘[D]etailed 

factual allegations’ are not required.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The amount of factual 

matter required is that which, accepted as true, is sufficient to “state a claim to relief that 

is plausible on its face.” (Id.) In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must take all 

material allegations in the complaint as true and construe all facts in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. NL Industries v. Kaplan, 792 F.3d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). 

 B. Analysis

 Defendant AME argues that the amount in question in this case is “due as a result 

of the sale by Samsung to Liano in December 2011 of eight (8) XG ultrasound 

machines.” (Doc 42 at 3.) AME attaches two purchase orders (4 XG machines listed on 

each) from RDL to Samsung on December 22, 2011. (Doc. 42, Ex. A.) AME argues that 

because the orders at issue were from RDL, not AME, that AME should be dismissed 

from the case. (Doc. 42 at 3-4.) AME argues that since both AME and RDL are separate 

legal entities, AME should not be required to answer for the debts and obligations of 

RDL. 

 However, these are factual arguments that may be suited for a motion for summary 

judgment but not a motion to dismiss. On a motion to dismiss the Court only considers 

the factual assertions in the complaint. Those assertions are that both AME and RDL 

owe Samsung a certain amount of money on an open account. These facts, accepted as 

true, pass the test of being plausible. The Court does not consider factual arguments 

about the truth of those assertions at this stage in the litigation. The motion must is, 

therefore, denied. 

Case 2:13-cv-00912-DJH Document 46 Filed 01/10/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

 

RDL’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

 A. Legal Standard

 At the pleading stage, all that is required is “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief [and] a demand for the relief sought.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b). Additionally, however, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), “A party may 

move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is 

allowed but which is so vague and ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a 

response.” Nevertheless Rule 12(e) motions are not to be used as substitutes for 

discovery. See, e.g., Usery v. Local 886, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, 

Warehousemen, & Helpers of Am., 72 F.R.D. 581, 582 (W.D. Okla. 1976); Shaffer v. 

Eden, 209 F.R.D. 460, 464 (D. Kan. 2002). 

 B. Analysis

 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) clearly lays out the basis for the 

claim against Defendants, namely an unpaid balance on an open account. Though 

Plaintiff’s Complaint itself does not give the particular transactions which led to the 

amount claimed, this is not required at the pleading stage. See Rentos, 1996 WL 737215 

supra. Plaintiff’s complaint is intelligible and the relief requested in consistent with the 

claim alleged. Further, details about the transactions that underlie Plaintiff’s claim, if 

they are unknown to Defendants, are appropriate topics for discovery. 

 Defendant cites authority which states that “a merely general description of the 

transactions between the parties is insufficient for a plaintiff to recover an amount owing 

on an open account; there must be some decent into detail.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Allen,

231 Ariz. 209, 292 P.3d 195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). However, this language cited is 

solely about what is required for to recover under an open account, not about what is 

required at the pleading stage in order to state a claim. 

 For the reasons stated, Defendant RDL’s motion for a more definite statement is 

denied. 

Case 2:13-cv-00912-DJH Document 46 Filed 01/10/14 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above both of Defendants’ motions lack legal merit. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant AME’s Motion to Dismiss 

(Doc. 42) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant RDL’s Motion for a More Definite 

Statement (Doc. 43) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 10th day of January, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00912-DJH Document 46 Filed 01/10/14 Page 4 of 4