Cote v. Anr

• Court: Vermont Superior Court
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 23-cv-4631
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Termont Superior Court Filed 02/05/24 Washington Unit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION Washington Unit Case No. 23-CV-04631 65 State Street Montpelier VT 05602 802-828-2091 www.vermontjudiciary.org

anet Cote v. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION Title: Motion for More Definite Statement (Motion: 1) Filer: David R. Mclean Filed Date: December 19, 2023

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking damages flowing from

various, unclearly delineated causes of action. Defendant has filed a motion for Cca more

definite statement. Vt. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Court makes

the following determinations.

Vermont's Rule 12 parallels Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. "Motions

pursuant to Rule 12(e) are disfavored and should not be granted unless the complaint is

so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the

defendant seriously in attempting to answer it." Greater N.Y. Auto. Dealers Ass'n v.

Envtl. Sys. Testing, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 71, 76 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). Typically, our Rules rely on

discovery to flesh out the factual details of a plaintiff's claim.

Nonetheless, the Court has wide discretion in whether to grant a motion for a

more definite statement. Kuklachev v. Gelfman, 600 F.Supp.2d 437, 456 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).

Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 3 23-CV-04631 Janet Cote v. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Motions for a more definite statement are more likely to be granted in instances where

potential threshold defenses exist that could turn on additional factual details. See 5C

Charles Wright, Arthur Miller, and Mary Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1376 (3d ed.).

Additionally, they can be appropriate where the pleading fails to put a defendant on

proper notice of the claim against it. See Bower v. Weisman, 639 F. Supp. 532, 538

(S.D.N.Y. 1986) (motion may be granted where “the complaint is so excessively vague

and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in

attempting to answer it” (internal quotation omitted)); Vt. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

In this instance, the Court agrees that the complaint fails provide Defendant

sufficient notice of Plaintiff’s claim and that it would be prejudiced by attempting to

respond to it. While notice pleading is permitted under Rule 8, the instant complaint

contains virtually no facts that might form a basis for Plaintiff’s claims. Further, the

motion raises the possibility of defenses, such as statute of limitations and

governmental immunity, that potentially could be implicated in this action. Absent

some factual allegations, Defendant cannot make a determination in that regard or

submit an appropriate answer.

The motion is granted. Plaintiff is to prepare an amended complaint. It shall

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader it entitled to

relief.” Further, the complaint must contain, at least, some factual allegations

Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 3 23-CV-04631 Janet Cote v. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources supporting each element of the claims asserted. See Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 2008 VT 20, ¶

10, 184 Vt. 1, 9.

WHEREFORE, the motion is granted. An amended complaint shall be submitted

to the Court and served within 30 days.

Electronically signed on Friday, February 2, 2024, per V.R.E.F. 9(d).

_______________________ Timothy B. Tomasi Superior Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion Page 3 of 3 23-CV-04631 Janet Cote v. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources