Margo Reid v. The Arc of the Ozarks

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARGO REID, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 26-03344-CV-S-DPR ) THE ARC OF THE OZARKS, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement. (Doc. 3.) Plaintiff, who represents herself in this action, did not file suggestions in opposition. Upon review, the Motion is DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) permits a party to move for a more definite statement when a pleading “is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Motions for more definite statement are directed at “unintelligibility rather than lack of detail in the complaint.” Allstate Indem. Co. v. Dixon, 304 F.R.D. 580, 582 (W.D. Mo. 2015) (quoting Tinder v. Lewis Cnty. Nursing Home Dist., 207 F. Supp. 2d 951, 960 (E.D. Mo. 2001)). Such a motion is appropriate where a party is unable to determine the “issues he must meet or where there is a major ambiguity or omission in the complaint such that the complaint is unanswerable”. Id. (citing Pfitzer v. Smith & Wesson Corp., No. 4:13–CV–676–JAR, 2014 WL 636381, at *1 (E.D.Mo. Feb. 18, 2014)). A motion for more definite statement is “not to be used to test the opponent's case by requiring him to allege certain facts or retreat from his allegations” nor is it to be used “as a substitute for discovery in trial preparation.” Id. (quoting Tinder, 207 F. Supp. 2d at 960). Defendant argues that Plaintiff appears to have filed two separate charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and received two right-to-sue letters, but the Complaint does not make clear which charge forms the basis of this action. Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff failed to attach either charge and contends that, without knowing which charge is at issue, it cannot reasonably prepare a responsive pleading.

The Court finds a more definite statement unnecessary. Plaintiff filed this action using the Court’s employment-discrimination complaint form and identifies Title VII as the basis for her claims. In the statement-of-claim section, Plaintiff identifies race as the alleged basis of discrimination and identifies termination, unequal terms and conditions of employment, retaliation, and harassment or hostile work environment as the conduct of which she complains. The Complaint is accompanied by a detailed, twenty-nine-paragraph factual narrative describing the individuals, events, and circumstances underlying Plaintiff’s claims. The record does not support Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff failed to attach either charge. Although Plaintiff did not attach the earlier April 2025 charge, the March 27, 2026, charge is attached to the Complaint. (Doc. 1 at 8-9.) That charge alleges retaliation and expressly

references the earlier charge. Plaintiff’s factual narrative likewise discusses both administrative proceedings, including the filing and disposition of the April 2025, charge and the filing and disposition of the March 2026, charge. On this record, the absence of the earlier charge does not render the Complaint so vague or ambiguous that Defendant cannot reasonably prepare a response. To the extent Defendant’s suggestions in support raise separate questions concerning the timeliness of claims, administrative exhaustion, or whether particular allegations fall within the scope of an EEOC charge, those issues do not establish that the Complaint is unintelligible for purposes of Rule 12(e). The Court does not resolve those issues in this Order. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement (doc. 3) is DENIED. Defendant shall file its responsive pleading within fourteen days of notice of this Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ David P. Rush DAVID P. RUSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATE: August 26, 2026