CS Capital Corp. v. Local Senior Services et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 7 Motion for More Definite Statement by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 10/13/11.(jjh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02357-WYD-MEH
CS CAPITAL CORP. d/b/a THE INVOICE BANKERS CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOCAL SENIOR SERVICES and
RANDY KALANI FAHILGA,
Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for More Definite
Statement, filed September 7, 2011 [ECF No. 7]. A response in opposition to the
motion was filed on September 21, 2011, and a reply was filed on October 5, 2011.
In their motion and reply, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s complaint is so
vague and ambiguous that Defendants cannot reasonably anticipate the claims being
made against them. Defendants assert that the complaint does not specify particular
legal claims or necessary facts upon which claims might be based. In its response,
Plaintiff states that as currently plead this case is a commercial collection action for
breach of contract.
In relevant part, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) states that 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 motion . . . must point out the defects complained of and the details

desired.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). “[A] motion for more definite statement is generally
discouraged unless the pleading is so unintelligible that defendants do not understand
the allegation and are unable to respond.” Runyan v. United Bhd. of Carpenters, 566
F.Supp. 600, 608 (D. Colo. 1983). In a broad spectrum of contract cases, a plaintiff
“should not be required to plead details about the terms of the contract . . .; as long as
the defendant has reasonable notice of the plaintiff’s contract based claim, [a] motion for
a more definite statement will be denied.” 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1377 (3d ed. 1998).
After carefully considering the motion, response, and reply, I find that the Motion
for More Definite Statement should be denied.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Motion for More Definite Statement filed September 7, 2011
[ECF No. 7], is DENIED.
Dated: October 13, 2011
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Chief United States District Judge

-2-