Bismark School District No. 25 et al v. Sykes Enterprises, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER denying 7 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on April 21, 2016. (hnc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
BISMARCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25;
OUACHITA SCHOOL DISTRICT; and
GLEN ROSE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
v.

PLAINTIFFS

Case No. 6:15-cv-6108

SYKES ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED
d/b/a SYKES ENTERPRISES

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement. (ECF No. 7).
Plaintiffs have filed a Response. (ECF No. 9). Defendant has filed a Reply. (ECF No. 13).
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims in the Amended and Substituted Complaint are so
vague and ambiguous that Defendant cannot reasonably prepare a response. Defendant requests a
more definite statement of the Amended and Substituted Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Amended and Substituted
Complaint is not so vague or convoluted as to be unintelligible, and Defendant can adequately
prepare a response.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of April, 2016.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge