Samsung Medison America Incorporated v. AmeriaMed East LLC et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 42 Motion to Dismiss; denying 43 Motion for More Definite Statement. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/10/14. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Samsung Medison America Incorporated, a
California corporation,

No. CV-13-00912-PHX-GMS
ORDER

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

AmeriaMed East LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company; RDL Medical
Incorporated, an Arizona corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Defendants,
v.
Bank of America, NA,
Garnishee.

19
20

Pending before the Court are Defendant AmeriaMed East, LLC’s (“AME”)

21

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 42) and Defendant RDL Medical Inc.’s (“RDL”) Motion for

22

More Definite Statement (Doc. 43). For the following reasons, both AME’s Motion to

23

Dismiss (Doc. 42) and RDL’s Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 43) are denied.

24

BACKGROUND

25

Plaintiff Samsung Medison America, Inc. (“Samsung”) filed suit against

26

Defendants for the principal sum of $404,134.72, owed to them “[a]s a result of open

27

account purchases.” (First Amended Complaint, Doc. 14 at 2.) Default judgment was

28

entered against Defendants by the Clerk of the Court (Doc 19), but later set aside (Doc

1

39). After the order from the Court setting aside the default judgment Defendants filed

2

the two motions at issue here.
AME’S MOTION TO DISMISS

3
4

A.

Legal Standard

5

“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a ‘short

6

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ‘[D]etailed

7

factual allegations’ are not required.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009)

8

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The amount of factual

9

matter required is that which, accepted as true, is sufficient to “state a claim to relief that

10

is plausible on its face.” (Id.) In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must take all

11

material allegations in the complaint as true and construe all facts in the light most

12

favorable to the plaintiff. NL Industries v. Kaplan, 792 F.3d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).

13

B.

Analysis

14

Defendant AME argues that the amount in question in this case is “due as a result

15

of the sale by Samsung to Liano in December 2011 of eight (8) XG ultrasound

16

machines.” (Doc 42 at 3.) AME attaches two purchase orders (4 XG machines listed on

17

each) from RDL to Samsung on December 22, 2011. (Doc. 42, Ex. A.) AME argues that

18

because the orders at issue were from RDL, not AME, that AME should be dismissed

19

from the case. (Doc. 42 at 3-4.) AME argues that since both AME and RDL are separate

20

legal entities, AME should not be required to answer for the debts and obligations of

21

RDL.

22

However, these are factual arguments that may be suited for a motion for summary

23

judgment but not a motion to dismiss. On a motion to dismiss the Court only considers

24

the factual assertions in the complaint. Those assertions are that both AME and RDL

25

owe Samsung a certain amount of money on an open account. These facts, accepted as

26

true, pass the test of being plausible. The Court does not consider factual arguments

27

about the truth of those assertions at this stage in the litigation. The motion must is,

28

therefore, denied.

-2-

1
RDL’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

2
3

A.

Legal Standard

4

At the pleading stage, all that is required is “a short and plain statement of the

5

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief [and] a demand for the relief sought.”

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b). Additionally, however, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), “A party may

7

move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is

8

allowed but which is so vague and ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a

9

response.”

Nevertheless Rule 12(e) motions are not to be used as substitutes for

10

discovery.

See, e.g., Usery v. Local 886, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,

11

Warehousemen, & Helpers of Am., 72 F.R.D. 581, 582 (W.D. Okla. 1976); Shaffer v.

12

Eden, 209 F.R.D. 460, 464 (D. Kan. 2002).

13

B.

Analysis

14

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) clearly lays out the basis for the

15

claim against Defendants, namely an unpaid balance on an open account.

Though

16

Plaintiff’s Complaint itself does not give the particular transactions which led to the

17

amount claimed, this is not required at the pleading stage. See Rentos, 1996 WL 737215

18

supra. Plaintiff’s complaint is intelligible and the relief requested in consistent with the

19

claim alleged. Further, details about the transactions that underlie Plaintiff’s claim, if

20

they are unknown to Defendants, are appropriate topics for discovery.

21

Defendant cites authority which states that “a merely general description of the

22

transactions between the parties is insufficient for a plaintiff to recover an amount owing

23

on an open account; there must be some decent into detail.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Allen,

24

231 Ariz. 209, 292 P.3d 195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). However, this language cited is

25

solely about what is required for to recover under an open account, not about what is

26

required at the pleading stage in order to state a claim.

27
28

For the reasons stated, Defendant RDL’s motion for a more definite statement is
denied.

-3-

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the reasons stated above both of Defendants’ motions lack legal merit.

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant AME’s Motion to Dismiss

4
5
6
7

(Doc. 42) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant RDL’s Motion for a More Definite
Statement (Doc. 43) is DENIED.
Dated this 10th day of January, 2014.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-