Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01465/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01465-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laurie Marie Laskey
Plaintiff
Microsoft Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURIE M. LASKEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and DOES 1

through 1000, inclusive

Defendant. /

No. C 08-01465 WHA

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS, OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, A MORE

DEFINITE STATEMENT

In this tort action, defendant Microsoft Corp., moves to dismiss or, in the alternative, for

a more definite statement. Plaintiff pro se Laurie Marie Laskey filed this action on January 30,

2008, in state court. The case was removed on March 17, 2008. Defendant then moved for a

more definite statement. The motion was granted. The order granting defendant’s motion for a

more definite statement stated in relevant part (Dkt. 39):

Plaintiff’s form complaint contains four causes of action: (1)

negligence; (2) intentional tort; (3) premises liability; and (4)

products liability. In support of her claim of negligence,

plaintiff only states “[y]ou have a faulty system which created

a security breach that allowed other [sic] to hack into my

computer and caused me to lose my means of employment.” 

The complaint goes on to include a second general negligence

claim stating:

Was the windows 95 print program ever

upgraded? The hackers would in the

background and the printer icon shows up in

Windows 98 and the other current versions. 

If it was never upgraded Microsoft’s

employees would have knowledge of that. 

Case 3:08-cv-01465-WHA Document 65 Filed 09/02/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

My printer does strange things and strange

things appear on my computer.

Plaintiff’s intentional tort claim states:

Microsoft will need to provide a history

report on the maintenance of their servers

since they are not being maintained

properly. This is an intentional act. 

Microsoft has created a premises liability

issue. (1) would be a hacker more than one

would be a crime ring. Microsoft is

supporting a crime ring.

Plaintiff’s remaining claims contain similar language. . . . 

Plaintiff’s complaint is entirely vague, ambiguous, and

incomprehensible to the point that defendant would be unable

to formulate any responsive pleading. 

The day before the order issued, Laskey filed a document entitled “More Defined Statement”

(Dkt. 38). That document does not purport to be an amended complaint, but instead is a list of

numbered paragraphs attaching several exhibits taken from various screenshots of websites

appearing on Laskey’s computer. It does not contain any cause of action or prayer for relief. 

Three weeks later Laskey served defendants with what appears to be a further revision to the

“More Defined Statement” entitled “More Defined Statement Rev #1,” which includes further

narrative paragraphs and additional exhibits. To date, Laskey has filed no amended complaint. 

Defendant now moves to dismiss, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement. 

Laskey has failed to address any of the merits of the motion. Her opposition, in its entirety,

states the following (Dkt. 61):

Response: I am not in agreement with defendants motion to

dismiss. Based on the evidence presented defendant has

disclosed that the printer browser ICW5 is defendants product. 

Disclosure establishes product lianility based on disclvery. 

Defendant’s product is being used for online identity theft. I

have been injured because of it.

Further Discovery:

Further discovery is required based on 1) Defendant’s

employees and or defendants contract agreement and or

agreements with others and or their employees “who

programmed” ICW5. 2) The programming in relation to and

or for ICW5. 3) The type of phone system and or systems

defendant utilizes. 4) The internet “gateway” and or gateways

defendant utilized. 5) The type of system and or systems

defendant utilizes. 6) Who designed defendant’s system and or

Case 3:08-cv-01465-WHA Document 65 Filed 09/02/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

systems? 7) Interrogatories. 8) Request for document

production. 9) Discovery to remain open.

Conclusion: How can plaintiffs case be dismissed now that

counsel for the defendant has disclosed liability? I pray to the

courts for justice.

It is not entirely clear, but it appears as though “ICW5” is short for one of Microsoft’s products.

FRCP 12(e) states (emphasis added):

A party may 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. The motion must be made before filing a responsive

pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the

details desired. If the court orders a more definite statement

and the order is not obeyed within 10 days after notice of the

order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike the

pleading or issue any other appropriate order.

Despite having ample opportunity and time, Laskey has still not filed any amended complaint in

this action. Her documents entitled “More Defined Statement” and “More Defined Statement

Rev #1” do not suffice for much the same reason that her original complaint was inadequate. 

Allowing Laskey yet another opportunity to cure the many defects in her case is hard to justify. 

Nonetheless, Laskey will be given one more opportunity file a more definite pleading. Such

pleading must be filed within ten calender days of this order. Failure to do so will result in

dismissal of this action with prejudice. The hearing on this motion is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01465-WHA Document 65 Filed 09/02/08 Page 3 of 3