TIBCO Software Inc., v. FEI Company

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING 11 MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/21/2017. The hearing scheduled for April 27, 2017, is VACATED. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2017)

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

TIBCO SOFTWARE INC.,

Case No. 5:17-cv-00696-EJD

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING FEI COMPANY’S
MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT

15
v.
16
17

FEI COMPANY,
Defendant.

18
19
Defendant FEI Company moves for a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).

20
21
22
23

FEI’s motion will be GRANTED.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) allows a party to move for a more definite statement if a pleading “is

24

so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.”

25

Rule 12(e) motions “are viewed with disfavor, and are rarely granted.” Cellars v. Pac. Coast

26

Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Rule 12(e) motions attack the

27

intelligibility of the complaint, not the lack of detail, and are properly denied where the complaint

28

1
Case No.: 5:17-cv-00696-EJD
ORDER GRANTING FEI COMPANY’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

1

notifies the defendant of the substance of the claims asserted. Beery v. Hitachi Home Elecs., Inc.,

2

157 F.R.D. 477, 480 (C.D. Cal. 1993). “If the detail sought by a motion for more definite

3

statement is obtainable through discovery, the motion should be denied.” Id.

4

II.

DISCUSSION

5

In this action, Plaintiff Tibco Software Inc. alleges that FEI has failed to pay fees due

6

under a software license agreement. Compl. ¶¶ 5–12, Dkt. No. 1. Tibco’s sole cause of action

7

alleges that FEI breached that agreement. Id. ¶¶ 13–18. Tibco’s prayer for relief reads in its

8

entirety:

9

. . . Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

10

1. For an order directing FEI to pay the license and maintenance fees
due, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest;

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2. For costs of suit, expenses, and attorneys’ fees; and

12

3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

13
14
15

Id. at 3.
FEI argues that it cannot determine “whether Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief—i.e.,

16

presumably, an order requiring Defendant’s specific performance of the Agreement—or money

17

damages in an unspecified sum.” Def.’s Mot. for More Definite Statement (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 11

18

at 4. Because of this ambiguity, FEI says, it cannot determine the affirmative defenses it may

19

plead, or whether it is entitled to a jury trial. Id. at 5–7. FEI notes that the civil cover sheet states

20

that Tibco seeks both “[m]onetary and injunctive relief.” Dkt. No. 1-1.

21

Tibco responds that its desired remedy is “plain”: it seeks “enforcement of the Agreement

22

via payment of the fees due.” Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for More Definite Statement, Dkt. No. 18

23

at 3. Tibco does not directly address whether it seeks monetary or injunctive relief; instead, it

24

argues that it “has not plead[ed] a cause of action for specific performance” and that “is not

25

required to plead a separate cause of action for specific performance.” Id. at 4. Tibco further

26

argues that more definiteness is not required because FEI can choose not to respond at all. Id. at 5.

27

The Court agrees with FEI. As pleaded, the complaint is too vague to enable FEI to

28

2
Case No.: 5:17-cv-00696-EJD
ORDER GRANTING FEI COMPANY’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

1

adequately prepare an answer. As ordered below, Tibco must amended its complaint to clarify the

2

remedies it seeks.
FEI also argues that Tibco’s “unfounded claim for attorneys’ fees is vague, particularly

3
4

without reference to the Agreement, or any other basis for such a claim.” Mot. at 7. Here, the

5

Court disagrees. Tibco’s claim for attorneys’ fees is sufficiently clear.

6

III.

7

CONCLUSION
FEI’s motion for a more definite statement is GRANTED. Within 14 days, Tibco shall file

8

an amended complaint that clarifies the remedies it seeks. The hearing scheduled for April 27,

9

2017, is VACATED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 21, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No.: 5:17-cv-00696-EJD
ORDER GRANTING FEI COMPANY’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT