Williams v. Ludden Health Care Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 16, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00069
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Steven N Williams, No. CV-22-00069-PHX-MTM

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ludden Health Care Incorporated,

13 Defendant. 14 15 All parties have voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United 16 States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 17 Before the Court are Defendant’s motion for more a definite statement, or in the 18 alternative to dismiss for failure to state a claim (doc. 11), and Defendant’s motion to stay 19 (doc. 12). 20 A motion for a more definite statement should not be granted unless a pleading “is 21 so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive 22 pleading.” Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994) 23 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e)). “Motions for a more definite statement are viewed with 24 disfavor and are rarely granted because of the minimal pleading requirements of the Federal 25 Rules.” Id. “[A] motion for a more definite statement must be considered in light of the 26 liberal pleading standards of Rule 8(a).” Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1461 27 (C.D. Cal. 1996). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), plaintiffs must merely set 28 forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [they are] entitled to relief.” 1 The Court concludes Plaintiff’s complaint is not so vague or ambiguous as to 2 prevent Defendant from being able to file a responsive pleading. It states the specific claim 3 Plaintiff brings against Defendant—a wrongful-death claim—and alleges facts to support 4 it. Without deciding whether Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to 5 dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for a more definite 6 statement, as “[t]he purpose of Rule 12(e) is to provide relief from a pleading that is 7 unintelligible, not one that is merely lacking detail.” U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Alia Corp., 842 F. 8 Supp. 2d 1243, 1250 (E.D. Cal. 2012). The Court does not find Plaintiff’s complaint to be 9 so unintelligible that Defendant cannot answer. 10 As to Defendant’s motion in the alternative to dismiss, Defendant failed to comply 11 with Local Rule 12.1(c). The Court will not consider a motion to dismiss for failure to state 12 a claim “unless the moving party includes a certification that, before filing the motion, the 13 movant notified the opposing party of the issues asserted in the motion and the parties were 14 unable to agree that the pleading was curable in any part by a permissible amendment 15 offered by the pleading party.” LRCiv 12.1(c). Compliance with this rule is relatively easy 16 to meet, as “[t]he movant may comply with this rule through personal, telephonic, or 17 written notice of the issues that it intends to assert in a motion.” Id. 18 Defendant gives no good cause for its failure to comply with LRCiv 12.1(c)’s 19 certification requirement. In its motion to stay, Defendant merely says “Counsel for 20 Ludden has been unable to discuss the issues raised in Ludden’s Motion to Dismiss with 21 Plaintiff.” (Doc. 12 at 1.) This is an insufficient attempt to comply with the Local Rules 22 and insufficient cause to excuse compliance. Though the Local Rules provide “a motion 23 [to dismiss] that does not contain the required certification may be stricken summarily,” 24 the Court will decline to do so because it is a motion in the alternative to its motion for a 25 more definite statement. Accordingly, the Court will deny without prejudice the motion for 26 a more definite statement, or in the alternative to dismiss. Having denied the motion for a 27 more definite statement, or in the alternative to dismiss, the Court finds no cause to stay 28 the proceedings and will deny the motion to stay as well. 1 IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s motion for more a definite statement, or in the 2|| alternative to dismiss for failure to state a claim (doc. 11) is DENIED WITHOUT □□ PREJUDICE. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant’s motion to stay (doc. 12) is DENIED. 5 Dated this 16th day of March, 2022. 6 7 Wr eted Y- PMereis □□ 8 United States Macistrate □□□□□□ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-