Chan v. Time Warner Inc et al

Filing 52

ORDER GRANTING #25 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/20/2017. The 6/22/2017 hearing is vacated. No appearance necessary. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14

PENG CHAN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

v.
TIME WARNER INC., a Delaware
corporation; MAZHER MAHMOOD; JIM
BARKSDALE; JOHN HANKE; CHRIS
DeWOLF; NEWS CORPORATION, INC., a
Delaware corporation; ALPHABET, INC., a
Delaware corporation; BARRY DILLER;
EDGAR BRONFMAN, JR.; KLEINER
PERKINS CAUFIELD, LLC, a California
limited liability company,

Case No. 5:16-CV-06268-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
TIME WARNER’S MOTION FOR
MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 25

Defendants.

22
23
24

Plaintiff Peng Chan filed a 215-page amended complaint. Dkt. No. 18. Defendant Time

25

Warner Inc. moves for a more definite statement. Dkt. No. 25. Time Warner’s motion will be

26

GRANTED.

27
28

1
Case No.: 5:16-CV-06268-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT TIME WARNER’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT

1

A party can move for a more definite statement when a pleading is “so vague or ambiguous

2

that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Such motions are

3

“viewed with disfavor, and are rarely granted.” Cellars v. Pac. Coast Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D.

4

575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Rule 12(e) motions challenge the intelligibility of the complaint, not

5

the lack of detail, and should be denied if the complaint notifies the defendant of the substance of

6

the claims. Beery v. Hitachi Home Elecs., Inc., 157 F.R.D. 477, 480 (C.D. Cal. 1993). “If the

7

detail sought by a motion for more definite statement is obtainable through discovery, the motion

8

should be denied.” Id.

9

The substance of Plaintiff’s claims is nearly impossible to discern. The complaint fails to
allege the elements of specific causes of action, and it fails to clearly explain how Time Warner’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

conduct is involved. Many portions are copied verbatim from Greenspan v. IAC/InterActive

12

Corp., No. 5:14-cv-04187-RMW (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 30, 2014), where the complaint was

13

dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiff was declared to be a vexatious litigant.

14

Time Warner argues that the complaint does not provide a sufficient basis for it to

15

reasonably prepare a response. Dkt. No. 25; see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177,

16

1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that relief under Rule 12(e) was appropriate where the complaint

17

was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”). The Court agrees.

18

Plaintiff is ordered to restate his allegations clearly and succinctly.

19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 20, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:16-CV-06268-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT TIME WARNER’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT