Nguyen v. Pitler et al

Filing 22

MINUTE ORDER granting 17 Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement. On or before 4/9/2010, plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint setting forth specific factual allegations that suppport plaintiff's claims, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/2/2010.(mjwcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-02824-REB-MJW THU N. NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT L. PITLER, et al., Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that the defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement (Docket No. 17) is granted. "A party can move for a more definite statement it if `cannot formulate a responsive pleading because the factual allegations are too sparse.'" Mayers v. Harvey, 2006 WL 6336711, *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 18, 2006) (citations omitted). While motions for a more definite statement made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) are generally disfavored in light of the liberal discovery provided under the Federal Rules, such a motion may be properly granted if the Complaint is so vague or ambiguous that a defendant cannot reasonably determine the issues requiring a response. See Coffey v. McKinley County, 2009 WL 3208209, *1 (D. N.M. Sept. 11, 2009). Here, in the Complaint, plaintiff has not provided defendants with sufficient notice of the claims against them to permit them to respond. Plaintiff's Complaint is a merely formulaic recitation of the elements of her claims, and the factual allegations are too sparse. Defendants cannot be expected to formulate a response to the Complaint as it currently stands. It is thus further ORDERED that on or before April 9, 2010, plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint setting forth specific factual allegations that support plaintiff's claims. Date: April 2, 2010