Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust et al v. Smith-Emery Company

Filing 21

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for a More Definite Statement 12 . Defendant's motion for a more definite statement is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall have until and including 3/21/2014, to file an amended complaint containing additional identifying information regarding the allegedly unpaid contributions. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-09545-CAS(VBKx)

Title

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION TRUST ET
AL. V. SMITH-EMERY COMPANY

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 6, 2014

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers:) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR
FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (dkt. 12, filed January
31, 2014)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of March 10, 2014, is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On December 30, 2013, plaintiffs Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension
Trust, Trustees of the Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund, Trustees of the
Operating Engineers Vacation-Holiday Savings Trust, and Trustees of the Operating
Engineers Training Trust filed suit against defendants Smith-Emery Company. Plaintiffs
seek to recover allegedly unpaid benefit contributions to the Operating Engineers Pension
Trust, Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund, Operating Engineers
Vacation-Holiday Savings Trust, and Operating Engineers Training Trust (collectively,
“Trust Funds”). Compl. ¶ 18. Plaintiff alleges that defendant owes the fringe benefit
contributions pursuant to a 2007 collective bargaining agreement between defendant and
Local Union No. 12 of the International Union of Operating Engineers (“Local No. 12”),
as well as subsequent amendments and related trust agreements. Id. ¶¶ 5, 9-12. Plaintiffs
assert claims for (1) breach of written collective bargaining agreements and related trust
agreements, (2) violation of § 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1145, and (3) breach of contract for contractual bond.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-09545-CAS(VBKx)

Date

March 6, 2014

Title

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION TRUST ET
AL. V. SMITH-EMERY COMPANY

On January 12, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or a more definite
statement. On February 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their opposition, and on February 21,
2014, defendant replied. After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and
concludes as follows.
II.

ANALYSIS

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that defendant’s motion for a more
definite statement should be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) provides, in relevant part: “A
party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive
pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably
prepare a response.” The Court begins by noting that “[m]otions for a more definite
statement are viewed with disfavor, and are rarely granted.” Cellars v. Pacific Coast
Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal.1999). A motion filed pursuant to Rule
12(e) “must point out the defects complained of and the details desired.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(e). “Such a motion is likely to be denied where the substance of the claim has been
alleged, even though some of the details are omitted.” True v. American Honda Moro
Co., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1175, 1180 (C.D. Cal.2007). By contrast, “a Rule 12(e)
motion is more likely to be granted where the complaint is so general that ambiguity
arises in determining the nature of the claim or the parties against whom it is being
made.” Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994).
Here, the Court finds that defendant has met the high burden of showing that the
complaint is so vague that it is unable to “frame a responsive pleading.” Boxall v.
Sequoia Union High Sch. Dist., 464 F. Supp. 1104, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 1979). In particular,
although the complaint provides sufficient detail about the nature of the contractual
relationship between defendants, Local No. 12, and the Trust Funds, the entirety of the
complaint’s allegations that defendant has failed to comply with its contractual
responsibilities is confined to a single paragraph. Paragraph 18, in full, states that:
The Trustees are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that for the time
period of January 1, 2010, through the present, Smith Emery has failed to pay
fringe benefit contributions and/or damages in amounts not presently known to
the Trustees. The exact amount of contributions and/or contract damages due
and owing has not been ascertained at this time. These amounts will be
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-09545-CAS(VBKx)

Date

March 6, 2014

Title

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION TRUST ET
AL. V. SMITH-EMERY COMPANY
established by proof at the trial herein. The amounts are due and payable at the
Trust Funds’ administrative offices in Pasadena, California.

Compl. ¶ 18. At bottom, this paragraph asserts nothing more than that defendant has
failed to pay the Trust Funds some amount of money. It does not identify what fringe
benefit contributions defendant has allegedly failed to pay or explain why plaintiffs
believe that defendant has failed to comply with its contractual obligations. Although
plaintiffs are correct that they “are not required to ‘make their case’ against Smith-Emery
by pleading specific evidentiary facts” in their complaint, opp. 5 (emphasis omitted), the
isolated assertion that defendant owes plaintiffs money does not provide sufficient notice
to defendant of the nature of plaintiffs’ claims. In particular, defendant cannot
reasonably prepare an answer responding to the allegations in Paragraph 18 because
plaintiff has not provided any information identifying the allegedly unpaid contributions.
The “minimal pleading requirements of the Federal Rules” Sagan, 874 F. Supp. at 1077,
do not require much, but they require more than plaintiffs have provided here.
IV.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, defendant’s motion for a more definite statement
is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall have until and including March 21, 2014, to file
an amended complaint containing additional identifying information regarding the
allegedly unpaid contributions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3