Court Opinion

ID: 9703985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:16:25.470872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:53.733344
License: Public Domain

Burgess, J.,
¶ 15. dissenting in part. Surely plaintiff does not depend on pretrial discovery to discover her own disability. Yet plaintiff fails, after two tries, to allege what disables her, why she should be entitled to a workplace accommodation for an affliction she does not identify, or why it was unreasonable not to accommodate her unknown disability. Nevertheless, the majority endorses this empty pleading, along with the rest of plaintiffs FEPA and § 1983 complaints equally devoid of any alleged grounds for such claims, as exemplifying the “beauty” of “underdeveloped” pleading supposedly allowed under our rules of civil procedure. Ante, ¶ 13. Not so enraptured by plaintiffs factless complaint, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s acceptance of claims based on labels in lieu of substance.
¶ 16. Plaintiffs amended complaint on these counts is not just underdeveloped, but is so starved for substantive allegations that it barely amounts to a spectre. Plaintiff shrouds her complaint with litigation labels, or catch-phrases, such as “wrongful termination” and “qualified disability,” and a defendant’s “personal involvement” and failure to make “reasonable accommodation,” but sets forth no facts leading to her conclusions. Like plaintiffs IIED complaint, correctly found here to lack a description of facts necessary to state the claim, ante, ¶ 10, her FEPA and civil rights complaints are nothing more than wishful thinking that fail to satisfy even the minimal requirement of Rule 8(a) to present “a statement of circumstances, occurrences, and events in support of the claim being presented.” 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1215, at 194 (3d ed. 2004).
¶ 17. The majority misperceives this criticism of the pleadings as a premature rush to summary judgment on lack of evidence, but the problem with plaintiffs pleading is not evidentiary. Rather, *13plaintiffs problem is her omission of any facts describing her own actual status or another’s actual conduct by which the State or its employee could be liable to her. As well explained by the trial court, plaintiffs amended complaint failed to state a claim against Ms. Keiser under § 1983 and failed to state a claim against the State under FEPA.2 Plaintiffs claims, as originally pled and as amended, were patently hollow and were properly dismissed.
¶ 18. Instead of plaintiffs conclusions, our rules require “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” V.R.C.P. 8(a) (emphasis added). While a party need not provide “a specific and detailed statement of the facts which constitute a cause of action,” he or she must provide “a statement clear enough ‘to give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds on which it rests.’ ” Reporter’s Notes, V.R.C.P. 8 (emphasis added) (citing the United States Supreme Court applying the same standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)); see also Lane v. Town of Grafton, 166 Vt. 148, 152-53, 689 A.2d 455, 457 (1997) (“[A] pleading is sufficient as long as it gives fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests.” (emphasis added)). This Court, along with a number of other courts, also relies on Conley for the majority’s proposition that “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” 355 U.S. at 45-46 (emphasis added); see, e.g., Levinsky v. Diamond, 140 Vt. 595, 600-01, 442 A.2d 1277, 1280-81 (1982) (citing Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46); see also Alger v. Vt. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 2006 VT 115, ¶ 12, 181 Vt. 309, 917 A.2d 508 (quoting Levinsky, 140 Vt. at 600-01, 442 A.2d at 1280-81).
¶ 19. Recognizing the degradation in the substance of complaints, the United States Supreme Court recently “retired” this “no set of facts” language, concluding that it had “been questioned, criticized, and explained away long enough.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007). Taken in its proper context, the Court explained, the phrase described “the breadth of opportunity to prove what an adequate complaint *14claims, not the minimum standard of adequate pleading to govern a complaint’s survival.” Id. at 563, 127 S. Ct. at 1969. If taken literally, however, as the majority does here, this “no set of facts” language would improperly allow “a wholly conclusory statement of claim” to survive “a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings left open the possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some ‘set of [undisclosed] facts’ to support recovery.” Id. at 561, 127 S. Ct. at 1968. Again considering the same Rule 8(a) standard as followed in Vermont, the Supreme Court rejected this approach, concluding that in light of the confusion generated by this part of the Conley decision, the “no set of facts” language was “best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Id. at 563, 127 S. Ct. at 1969.3
¶20. Just as an antitrust complaint in Twombly was properly dismissed when it furnished “no clue” as to the participants in, and the time and location of, an alleged “conspiracy” in restraint of trade, 550 U.S. at 565, 127 S. Ct. at 1971, so too was plaintiff’s complaint properly dismissed when it failed to allege any facts to show why she perceives herself a state employee or how state actors were involved in any wrongful action against her. Yet, as *15predicted and criticized in Twombly, the majority here relies on the “no set of facts” passage in Conley to allow plaintiffs wholly conelusory statements — without any statement of grounds required by Rule 8(a) — to survive a proper motion to dismiss. Rule 8(a) requires more. As the Supreme Court reiterated in Twombly, to state a valid claim a party must provide more than “labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. It is with this common sense clarification in mind that we should test the allegations in plaintiffs complaint.
¶ 21. In Count I of her amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that Ms. Reiser, among others, maliciously and wrongfully terminated her employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.4 In an apparent attempt to satisfy the “state action” requirement, plaintiff proposed to amend her complaint to include the following statement: “[ujpon information and belief, Defendant Ms. Reiser had personal involvement in the decision to wrongfully terminate [pjlaintiff.” This cannot be enough, because we cannot know from the pleading what, if anything, this defendant is supposed to have done wrong. In any event, “it is well established that a state official’s mere approval of or acquiescence to the conduct of a private party is insufficient to establish the nexus required for state action.” Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom Concert, 49 F.3d 1442, 1450 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing cases). As noted above, Rule 8(a) requires not only that a party provide “‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim, but also [the] ‘grounds’ on which the claim rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3, 127 S. Ct. at 1965 n.3 (emphasis added) (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, § 1202, at 94-95 (explaining that Rule 8(a) “contemplate[s] the statement of circumstances, occurrences, and events in support of the claim presented” and does not authorize a pleader’s “bare averment that he wants relief and is entitled to it”)).
*16¶ 22. The majority nevertheless finds this statement sufficient to state a claim against Ms. Keiser, reasoning that it must be taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. The majority confuses unfounded conclusions with allegations of fact. While a plaintiffs “facts must be accepted as alleged, this does not automatically extend to bald assertions, subjective characterizations and legal conclusions.” DM Research, Inc. v. Coll, of Am. Pathologists, 170 F.3d 53, 55 (1st Cir. 1999) (quotation and brackets omitted). Plaintiffs assertion that Ms. Keiser “had personal involvement” in the decision to terminate her is nothing more than a bare recitation of a necessary legal element of any § 1983 claim. See, e.g., Moffitt v. Town of Brookfield, 950 F.2d 880, 886 (2d Cir. 1991) (to avoid summary judgment, plaintiff must show the “personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations” as a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983). Plaintiff alleges no facts or grounds whatsoever upon which to claim any actual personal involvement on Ms. Reiser’s part beyond plaintiffs vague and speculative reference to some unattributed “information and belief.” What information, and what the basis is for plaintiffs belief, remains a mystery. Plaintiffs complaint offers not a single suggestion as to when, where, or how Ms. Keiser was allegedly involved in plaintiffs termination.5 See DM Research, 170 F.3d at 55 (“[T]he factual allegations must be specific enough to justify drag[ging] a defendant past the pleading threshold.” (quotation and citation omitted)). Plaintiffs claim stands as nothing but a bald conclusory assertion, and it need not be accepted as true.
¶ 23. Indeed, we note that even in her brief, plaintiff cannot say how, or even if, Ms. Keiser was personally involved in her termination. According to plaintiff, there is “some indication that Ms. Keiser may have been involved,” and she believes that further *17discovery will show that Ms. Reiser was involved. Plaintiff contends that, on her beliefs alone, she is entitled to conduct discovery to determine if Ms. Reiser was properly named as a defendant.
¶ 24. Plaintiff misunderstands the requirements of Rule 8(a). “The need at the pleading stage for allegations plausibly suggesting” that the elements of a claim have been met “reflects the threshold requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) that the ‘plain statement’ possess enough heft to ‘sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S. Ct. at 1966. As one court has explained:
[The] concept of “the pleading threshold” is critical. The complaint should include “a short and plain statement” of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, so it need not include evidentiary detail. On the other hand, the price of entry, even to discovery, is for the plaintiff to allege a factual predicate concrete enough to warrant further proceedings, which may be costly and burdensome. Conelusory allegations in a complaint, if they stand alone, are a danger sign that the plaintiff is engaged in a fishing expedition.
DM Research, 170 F.3d at 55 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs pleading lacks heft because it lacks facts. Plaintiffs admission that she needs discovery because she does not know if Ms. Reiser was involved not only warns, but confirms, that she is purely on a fishing expedition.
¶25. The decision in DM Research is instructive. In that case, the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the two defendants had “conspired” with one another, and they argued that for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the court must accept this allegation as true, however implausible it might be. Id. The court rejected this notion, finding that terms like “conspiracy,” or even “agreement,” were “border-line: they might well be sufficient in conjunction with a more specific allegation — for example, identifying a written agreement or even a basis for inferring a tacit agreement — but a court is not required to accept such terms as a sufficient basis for a complaint.” Id. at 56. Far from being a “technical mouse-trap for an unduly terse plaintiff,” the court explained, the ongoing nature of the litigation process, even at the pleading stage, provides plaintiffs with ample opportunity to *18remedy the shortcomings of their complaints. Id. Plaintiffs in DM Research were advised of the thrust of the defendant’s arguments for dismissal, and were free to respond to the motion to dismiss by providing “additional facts to make its complaint concrete and plausible,” id., but, as in the instant case, failed to do so. They added nothing in their opposition to the motion to dismiss, nor even in their brief on appeal, to provide factual support for their complaint. Id. As the court observed, “the discovery process is not available where, at the complaint stage, a plaintiff has nothing more than unlikely speculations. While this may mean that a civil plaintiff must do more detective work in advance, the reason is to protect society from the costs of highly unpromising litigation.” Id.
¶ 26. This reasoning applies with equal force here. Plaintiff had several opportunities to allege sufficient facts to support her § 1983 claim. Put on notice about the factual shortcomings of her allegations by defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff failed to remedy her pleading deficiencies, and her conclusory allegations simply do not suffice to state a claim under Rule 8(a). As recently reiterated in Twombly, Rule 8 “still requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” 550 U.S. at 555 n.3, 127 S. Ct. at 1965 n.3 (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Ms. Reiser was properly dismissed.6
¶ 27. Plaintiff’s FEPA claim is equally deficient. To establish a claim under FEPA, a plaintiff must allege that she was a qualified disabled individual and that she was discharged because of her disability. See 21 V.S.A. § 495; Lowell v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 955 F. Supp. 300, 303 (D. Vt. 1997). In her proposed amended complaint, plaintiff states that she has a “qualified disability,” that defendants failed to reasonably accommodate her disability, and that defendants “used [her] disability as a pretense for their malicious and wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s employment in *19violation of 21 V.S.A. § 495.”7 Alternatively, plaintiff states that her termination was “a direct and proximate result” of her disability. But what disability? What accommodation? What pretense? Plaintiff does not say.
¶ 28. As with plaintiff’s proposed § 1983 claim, her FEPA claim consists of nothing but conclusions and labels. Such allegations do not provide defendant with notice as to the particular nature of plaintiff’s claim; they merely restate, or attempt to restate, legal elements required for any FEPA claim. Plaintiff does not, or cannot, identify the nature of her alleged disability. Plaintiff is not required to prove that she has a disability to get past a motion to dismiss, but Rule 8(a) still requires that she allege a disability so that the State can formulate a response to her allegation. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3, 127 S. Ct. at 1965 n.3 (‘Without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only ‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim, but also ‘grounds’ on which the claim rests.”); see also 21 V.S.A. § 495d(6) (defining term “qualified individual with a disability”); State v. G.S. Blodgett Co., 163 Vt. 175, 181, 656 A.2d 984, 988 (1995) (explaining that to be considered a “qualified handicapped individual,” a plaintiff must demonstrate the ability to perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation).
¶ 29. Indeed, plaintiff fails to allege any facts at all. She does not describe the reasonable accommodation allegedly asked for, nor does she describe the circumstances of the State’s alleged refusal to accommodate her. Plaintiff similarly fails to state how, why, or when the State allegedly used her disability as the basis — “pretextual” or not — for terminating her. Seeking to respond to such allegations, a defendant “would have little idea where to begin.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 565 n.10, 127 S. Ct. at 1971 n.10. Allowing such a claim under Rule 8(a) is like accepting a negligence claim alleging nothing more than defendant owed plaintiff some undescribed duty of care, and that he breached that duty in some mysterious way resulting in some unknown damage. Rule 8(a) requires more.
¶ 30. Plaintiff further fails to allege any grounds by which to claim that the State was her employer. Indeed, contrary to the *20majority’s contention, plaintiff does not even allege in a conclusory fashion in her amended complaint that the State was her employer. Cf. ante, ¶ 9. Instead, plaintiff asserted that “Defendant, Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, is an employer under the definition of employer under 21 V.S.A. § 495 and is liable for the wrongful actions of Defendants Umbrella, Ms. Reiser, Ms. Fay and Ms. Grant in the termination of Plaintiff.” (Emphasis added.) Assuming the Department is “an employer” under § 495d(l), it hardly means that it is plaintiff’s employer. The latter half of this allegation — that the Department is “liable for the wrongful actions” of the other defendants — is nothing more than a legal conclusion, without a fact set forth as to why this could be so. It is not a factual allegation and it need not be accepted as true.
¶ 31. The only other allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint relevant to her identification of an employer liable to her under FEPA might be her assertions that (1) “Defendant Umbrella claimed Plaintiff was an at-will employee and therefore could be terminated at will”; (2) plaintiff’s direct supervisor was an Umbrella employee; (3) Ms. Reiser “had supervisory and managerial control over Defendant Umbrella’s child care resource center”; and (4) “Defendant State of Vermont Agency of Human Services Department for Children and Families, Child Development Division (‘CDD’) is an agency of the State of Vermont with supervisory and managerial control over Umbrella’s child care resource center.” None of these allegations, taken separately or as a whole, provide a sufficient factual predicate of state employment to support plaintiff’s FEPA claim against the State.
¶ 32. It is unclear how the majority concludes that plaintiff sufficiently alleges that the State was her employer under 21 V.S.A. § 495. Ante, ¶ 9. Assuming, as claimed in the amended complaint, that DCF or its employee had supervisory and managerial control over plaintiff’s Umbrella worksite, those facts simply do not describe an employment relationship between the State and plaintiff. Clearly plaintiff does not allege any hiring or payment by the State, both factors recognized by the majority as threshold elements for establishing an employment relationship. Ante, ¶ 9 (citing United States v. City of New York, 359 F.3d 83, 90-91 (2d Cir. 2004)); see also O’Connor v. Davis, 126 F.3d 112, 115-16 (2d Cir. 1997) (explaining that “[w]here no financial benefit is obtained by the purported employee from the employer, no *21‘plausible’ employment relationship of any sort can be said to exist because although compensation by the putative employer to the putative employee in exchange for his services is not a sufficient condition, ... it is an essential condition to the existence of an employer-employee relationship.” (citation omitted)). Plaintiff never actually alleges that the State supervised or managed her. Although other tests exist to determine “employee” status under Title VII, plaintiff alleged no facts to support application of any of them. See, e.g., King v. Dalton, 895 F. Supp. 831, 837-38 (E.D. Va. 1995) (discussing various tests employed to determine “employee” status under Title VII); see also Brug v. Nat'l Coal, for Homeless, 45 F. Supp. 2d 33, 36-37 (D.D.C. 1999) (stating that Title VII covers only those in a “direct employment relationship with a government employer,” and most important factor in determining if individual had sufficiently direct employment relationship with federal government is federal government’s right to control plaintiffs work); Mares v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 1066, 1069 (5th Cir. 1985) (explaining that just because certain grocery baggers who worked on military base had to comply with certain Army regulations concerning dress and conduct, that was “not enough to make them employees of the Army”).
¶ 33. It is no answer to say that plaintiffs claim should survive, regardless of its lack of asserted facts, merely because it does not appear beyond a doubt that there exist no facts or circumstances that plaintiff could prove entitling her to relief under FEPA. Ante, ¶ 8. As pointed out above, this purported standard, borrowed from Conley and since disavowed by its propounding authority in Twombly, was never intended to be a substitute for substantial pleadings. It was for empty pleadings such as plaintiffs that Twombly disowned the “no possible facts” passage in Conley still mistakenly relied on by the majority to sustain plaintiffs complaint. Allowing such complaints, explains Twombly, would simply settle for “Mr. Micawber’s optimism” in place of substance, and “would dispense with any showing of a ‘reasonably founded hope’ ” that a plaintiff would be able to make a case.8 550 U.S. at 562, 127 S. Ct. at 1969. We should, like Twombly, stop the erosion of *22pleadings under Rule 8(a) and stop compelling the wasted time of human beings in pretrial discovery when, even after repleading, plaintiff fails to describe facts amounting to a legally plausible cause of action.9
¶ 34. Contrary to the expectations of plaintiff and the majority, Rule 8(a) does not purport to offer a passport to pretrial discovery in return for simply claiming the possibility of a cause of action. That evidence exists or might later be discovered from defendant to support plaintiff’s cause of action is immaterial to the question of whether the factual allegations in her complaint were sufficient to state a claim under the rule. Id. at 561, 127 S. Ct. at 1968. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations were plainly insufficient here, and her claims against Ms. Keiser and the State were properly dismissed by the trial court.
¶ 35. I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal of all counts, and am authorized to state that Justice Skoglund joins in this dissent.

 Having fully considered, and finding futile, the content of plaintiffs amended allegations, the trial court’s refusal to formally accept the amended complaint as filed was immaterial.

 Contrary to the majority’s assertion, Twombly is not read to overrule Conley, or to impose a “new and heightened pleading standard.” Cf. ante, ¶ 5 n.l. Nor must Twombly be read to interject a “flexible ‘plausibility standard’ ” of amplified factual pleadings for some complaints, but not for others, as interpreted in Iqbal v. Hasty, cited by the majority as an example of uncertainty in the meaning of Twombly. See Iqbal, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed, 76 U.S.L.W. 3349 (U.S. Dec. 17, 2007) (No. 07-827). In what some might view as a hyperliteral critique of Twombly, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Iqbal appears to borrow more uncertainty than is actually presented in Twombly. For example, Iqbal cites as puzzling Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007), decided after Twombly, but still relying on Twombly for the established proposition that “[s]peciflc facts are not necessary” for a Rule 8(a) statement that “need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 93, 127 S. Ct. at 2200. Confusion arises only for the overly exact reader. While detailed facts may not be required, certainly some facts must be alleged for the English language to achieve a “claim” and a description of its “grounds.” See, e.g., V.R.C.P. Form 9 (cited ante, ¶ 12). As set forth above, the Twombly Court only clarified what the Conley Court intended its “no set of facts” language to mean when it authored the phrase, and confirmed that the phrase had been taken out of context and misinterpreted by courts like ours since Conley was decided. Twombly simply reiterated, and returned to, the basic requirements of Rule 8(a).

 Plaintiff originally alleged that she was an at-will employee of Umbrella and that Umbrella was a “state actor” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by virtue of being subject to state regulation, but concedes in her brief that state regulation does not a state actor make. In her amended complaint, plaintiff no longer claimed to be an employee of Umbrella, although she did not identify any other employer.

 The majority’s reference to Rule of Civil Procedure Form 9, ante, ¶ 12, as a rule-sanctioned example of adequate notice pleading is facially inapposite to plaintiff’s pleadings. Form 9 expressly complains that a defendant carelessly drove a car into a pedestrian. No such clear declaration of wrongdoing appears in the instant complaint where plaintiff generally claims, but refuses to describe, “personal involvement” by Ms. Keiser in her termination. “Involvement” could suppose, among other inferences, that Ms. Keiser somehow ordered, or authoritatively advised or approved the firing, some of which conduct might, but not necessarily, be culpable. “Involvement” could just as easily be that Ms. Keiser was merely told about, was advised, or suggested or even agreed that plaintiff should be fired, none of which, without more, would necessarily render the defendant liable. Plaintiff fails to plead any wrongful act on Ms. Keiser’s part.

 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to challenge the dismissal of her § 1983 claim against the State or DCF’s Child Development Division (CDD), she waived such arguments by failing to raise them on appeal. We note, however, that it is well settled that the State is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983, and that to the extent plaintiff sought damages from the CDD due to Ms. Reiser’s alleged actions, “respondeat superior cannot form the basis for a § 1983 claim.” Hemmings v. Gorczyk, 134 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 1998).

 The statute speaks of a “qualified disabled individual,” 21 V.S.A. § 495, and it appears that this is what plaintiff is referencing when she refers to her “qualified disability.”

 Exemplary of Wilkins Micawber’s manic optimism in Charles Dickens’ novel “David Copperfield,” he famously declares in Chapter 52: “Now, welcome poverty! . . . Welcome misery, welcome houselessness, welcome hunger, rags, tempest, and beggary! Mutual confidence will sustain us to the end!” Applying the actual pleading requirements of Rule 8(a), rather than the majority’s dilution, plaintiffs *22factually impoverished complaint should require more to survive a motion to dismiss than optimistic confidence in her planned discovery expedition.

 It is also noteworthy that the majority’s view effectively undoes more than Rule 8(a). Since no informed answer can ever be filed in response to complaints like plaintiff’s FEPA and § 1983 claims, denials need be merely automatic. Automatic denial obviates the need for much of Rule 8(b) that promotes answers to “meet the substance of the averments” and particularly respond to particular averments, since the need for particularity in a complaint is read out of Rule 8(a) by the majority. No longer recognizing Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss except for legal impossibility, and not for inadequate grounds, the majority justifies denials in all instances as “without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an averment.” V.R.C.P. 8(b). What had expressly been a defendant’s option under Rule 12(e) to request a more definite statement in response to a vague complaint, the majority now mandates as a remedy instead of a motion to dismiss. The imagined remedy of a more definite statement is, of course, rendered a nullity by the majority’s holding that a vaporific complaint, like plaintiffs, is already definite enough. Thus, the majority sends Rule 12(e) to join its companions 8(a), 8(b) and 12(b)(6) in the repository of written, but no longer observed, rules of civil procedure.