Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02386/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02386-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lisa Douglas
Defendant
Mike Douglas
Defendant
Executive Mini Storage
Defendant
Scott N. Johnson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, No. 2:09-cv-02386-MCE-JFM 

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LISA DOUGLAS, individually

and d/b/a EXECUTIVE MINI

STORAGE and as Trustee of 

the DOUGLAS FAMILY TRUST

DATED August 18, 2006; MIKE

DOUGLAS, individually

and d/b/a EXECUTIVE MINI

STORAGE and as Trustee of 

the DOUGLAS FAMILY TRUST

DATED August 18, 2006,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff Scott Johnson

(“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants Lisa Douglas and Mike

Douglas, both individually and doing business as Executive Mini

Storage (“Defendants”), are in violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.,

as well as California Civil Code §§ 51-52 for providing

inadequate access for persons with disabilities to the premises

on which Defendants’ business is located. 

Case 2:09-cv-02386-MCE-KJN Document 18 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 6
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

 The factual assertions in this section are based on the 1

allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint unless otherwise specified.

2

Plaintiff seeks both injunctive and monetary relief. Now before

this Court is Defendants’ Motion for More Definite Statement

brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). 

Defendants also seek attorney’s fees and costs under Rule 41(d)

on grounds that a previous action filed against them by Plaintiff

was dismissed in August of 2009.

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff has physical impairments associated with

quadriplegia that cause substantial limitations and restrictions

on many of his major life activities. In his Complaint,

Plaintiff alleges that when he visited Defendants’ storage

facility in August of 2009, he encountered architectural barriers

which prevented his full access to the facility. Plaintiff’s

Complaint describes the architectural barriers as the lack of

“the correct number and type of properly configured disabled

parking space(s) including the lack of a van accessible disabled

parking space, accessible route, accessible entrance,

accessibility signage, [and] striping.” Pl.’s Compl., ¶ 3. 

Plaintiff also claims that he has foregone two visits to

Defendants’ storage facility because of those issues.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-02386-MCE-KJN Document 18 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 6
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

STANDARD

A. Motion for More Definite Statement

Before interposing a responsive pleading, a defendant may

move for a more definite statement “[i]f a pleading ... is so

vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to

frame a responsive pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). A

Rule 12(e) motion is proper when the plaintiff’s complaint is so

indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the

claim being asserted. Gay-Straight Alliance Network v. 

Visalia Unified Sch. Dist., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1099 

(E.D. Cal. 2001).

Due to the liberal pleading standards embodied in Rule 8(e)

and the availability of extensive discovery, courts should not

freely grant motions for more definite statements. Famolare,

Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 940, 949 (E.D.

Cal. 1981). Indeed, a motion for a more definite statement

should be denied unless the information sought by the moving

party is not available and is not ascertainable through

discovery. Id.

B. Costs of Previously Dismissed Action

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d), the Court may

order a litigant who previously filed an action against the same

defendant on the same grounds to pay all or part of the

defendant’s costs incurred in the previous action.

///

Case 2:09-cv-02386-MCE-KJN Document 18 Filed 03/11/10 Page 3 of 6
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

4

The Court may also stay the subsequent proceedings until after

such costs have been paid. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d).

ANALYSIS

A. Motion for More Definite Statement

In their Motion for More Definite Statement, Defendants

claim that Plaintiff’s Complaint provides “no specific

allegations that state precisely what the alleged allegation is

relating to Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants’ business.” 

Defs.’ Mot., 3:24-26. 

Despite that contention, as indicated above the Complaint in

fact specifically refers to the denial of “properly configured

disabled parking spaces(s)”, and goes on to even more

specifically identify the lack of a van accessible disabled

space. The Complaint further refers to the lack of an

“accessible route, disabled entrance, accessibility signage,

[and] striping.” See Compl., 3:9-13. Additionally, the

Complaint includes as Exhibit E a photograph of what it describes

as the “non compliant van accessible disabled parking.” Id. at

6:15-16. Defendants nonetheless contend that these allegations

do not provide them with a “fair opportunity to frame a

responsive pleading...” Defs.’ Mot., 4:11-13. 

The Court disagrees. Defendants have not, and cannot, cite

any authority that holding that additional facts beyond those

already identified by Plaintiff are required under federal

pleading standards.

///

Case 2:09-cv-02386-MCE-KJN Document 18 Filed 03/11/10 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Instead, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief” is all that Plaintiff is

required to provide in this regard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Defendants also do not claim that the information they seek is

not available or ascertainable through discovery.

The Court concludes that the statements and allegations

already provided by Plaintiff provide sufficient specificity to

enable Defendant to ascertain the nature of the claims being

asserted and to allow preparation of a properly framed responsive

pleading. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for More Definite

Statement lacks merit.

B. Costs of Previously Dismissed Action

While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) does give the

Court discretion to award costs against a litigant who has

dismissed a prior case asserting the same claim, Plaintiff

asserts that the particular violation giving rise to the current

lawsuit did not exist until after dismissal of the earlier action

in August of 2009. The photograph of the non-compliant van

accessible disabled parking space attached as Exhibit E to the

present action was not included within Plaintiff’s earlier

complaint. Defendant offers nothing to counter Plaintiff’s

contention that the two lawsuits were different other than make

an unsupported allegation that the two actions are “mirror

images” and based on the same alleged violations. This is not

enough in the Court’s view to justify an imposition of costs

under Rule 41(d). 

Case 2:09-cv-02386-MCE-KJN Document 18 Filed 03/11/10 Page 5 of 6
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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 2

the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 230(g).

6

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for More

Definite Statement (Docket No. 5) is DENIED. Defendants’ 2

concurrent request for an award of attorney’s fees under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) is also rejected. Defendants are

directed to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Complaint

not later than ten (10) days after this Memorandum and Order is

filed electronically.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02386-MCE-KJN Document 18 Filed 03/11/10 Page 6 of 6