Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01151/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01151-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Chao
Defendant
Scott N. Johnson
Plaintiff
Metro Pizza Buffet
Defendant
Nopada Properties Development IV
Defendant

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. 2:07-cv-1151-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JACK CHAO, individually and

d/b/a METRO PIZZA BUFFET;

NOPADA PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT

IV, a California Limited

Partnership,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff Scott Johnson

(“Plaintiff”) alleges Defendant Jack Chao (“Defendant”),

individually and as owner of the Metro Pizza Buffet

(“restaurant”), is in violation of the Americans with

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

Civil Code §§ 51-52 for providing inadequate access for persons

with disabilities to the premises on which the restaurant is 

located. 

///

Case 2:07-cv-01151-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 5
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, 1

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

Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

Plaintiff seeks both injunctive and monetary relief. Now before

this Court is Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) .

1

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that on February 9, 2007, he visited

Defendant’s restaurant but did not stay because of the lack of a

van accessible disabled parking space. On February 13, 2007,

Plaintiff sent a 30-Day Correction Notice to Defendant informing

him about the lack of accessibility and requested that the

property be brought back into conformity with ADA requirements. 

On March 29, 2007, Plaintiff claims he again visited Defendant’s

restaurant but did not stay because property alterations were in

progress. Defendant performed some parking lot leveling, but

allegedly relocated the disabled parking to a location with a

slope greater than two percent. Plaintiff also claims that the

entrance ramp slope is too steep and that the landing is noncompliant. Plaintiff alleges that he has foregone five visits to

the restaurant because of the architectural barriers on the

premises.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01151-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 5
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

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.

ANALYSIS

In the Motion for More Definite Statement, Defendant claims

that Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide a clear and concise

factual statement about the type of specific architectural

barriers alleged to be non-compliant with the ADA. 

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-01151-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 5
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

Defendant identifies specifically the lack of definitions

provided in Plaintiff’s complaint regarding “van accessible

disabled parking space,” “accessible route,” accessible

entrance,” and “accessible restrooms.” As a result, Defendant

claims he is incapable of framing appropriate and full responses

or pleading adequate defenses.

Defendant does not cite any authority that holds that such a

level of definition is required under the federal pleading

standards. Indeed, “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). Defendant also does not claim that the information

sought by the moving party is not available or is not

ascertainable through discovery.

Regarding Defendant’s objections to the lack of definition

to the above listed terms, Plaintiff’s complaint states that the

slope of the new disabled parking location is greater than two

percent and that the landing is non-compliant. Further, the

complaint also identifies the sections of the Americans

Disabilities Act Accessible Guidelines (“ADAAG”) applicable to

the issue of disabled parking and access, including “§ 4.3

Accessible Route,” “§ 4.6 Parking and Passenger Loading Zones,” 

“§ 4.14 Entrances,” and several others.

These statements and allegations provide sufficient

specificity to enable Defendant to ascertain the nature of the

claims being asserted and allow for a properly framed responsive

pleading. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for More Definite

Statement lacks merit.

Case 2:07-cv-01151-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 10/15/07 Page 4 of 5
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for More

Definite Statement is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01151-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 10/15/07 Page 5 of 5