Proctor v. Citigroup Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER granting 9 Motion for More Definite Statement by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 09/22/2017. The plaintiff shall file her General Complaint in this action on or before 10/25/2017. The Scheduling Conference set for 10/23/2017 is VACATED and RESET set for 11/20/2017 10:45 AM in Courtroom A 501 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. Copy sent to plaintiff. (mdave, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 17-cv-02248-MEH
RAMONA PROCTOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIBANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

ORDER

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement [filed September 21,
2017; ECF No. 9]. The Court finds that it requires no further briefing to adjudicate the motion.
The Court agrees with Defendant that the Complaint, as stated, “fails to address the essential
who, what, where, when, why and how questions that make up the bare minimum requirements of
Rule 8’s notice pleading standard, which apply in this action now that it is pending in federal court.”
Mot. ¶ 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). Plaintiff’s “Alias [Amended]
Notice of Claim,” filed in the Combined Court for Delta County, Colorado, states in its entirety:
Defamation
Negligent enablement of Identity Fraud
Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
ECF No. 1-2. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $5,000.00. Id. Although it appears the
Plaintiff pleads a violation that may be sufficient to assert this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction
(i.e., the Fair Credit Reporting Act), the Court finds the pleading is otherwise “so vague and

ambiguous that the [Defendant] cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
Therefore, the Court will grant the motion as follows.1 The Clerk of the Court is directed
to provide a form General Complaint with a copy of this order to the Plaintiff for her completion.
Plaintiff is directed to the Court’s website at www.cod.uscourts.gov for instructions. See also
“Guide to Civil Lawsuits for Pro Se Parties.”2 The Plaintiff shall file her General Complaint in this
action on or before October 25, 2017. If the Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court may
strike the pleading and/or dismiss the action without further notice.
In light of this order, the Scheduling Conference currently set for October 23, 2017 is
vacated and rescheduled to November 20, 2017 at 10:45 a.m. in Courtroom A-501, on the fifth
floor of the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse located at 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.
If this date is not convenient, the parties shall confer and contact my Chambers to obtain an alternate
date. All parties must be present if they wish to change the conference date by telephone; otherwise,
any party seeking to change the conference date must file a motion.

Absent exceptional

circumstances, no request for rescheduling will be entertained unless made five business days prior
to the date of the conference.
Lawyers whose offices are located outside of the Denver metropolitan area may appear at
scheduling conferences by telephone. Please contact Chambers at [phone] at least five
business days prior to the scheduling conference to arrange appearance by telephone. Lawyers
appearing by telephone must ensure that the proposed Scheduling Order is filed electronically and
1

The undersigned has issued an order on this matter because motions of this sort do not
appear in the list of pretrial matters that require submission of a recommendation. See Barnhardt v.
Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 1:13CV637, 2013 WL 5524806, at *1 n. 1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 4, 2013) (citing
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B)); see also Lynch v. McDonough, No. 03CV556A(F), 2005 WL
1561454, at *1 n. 1 (W.D.N.Y. July 1, 2005) (ruling that “request for a more definite statement
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) is nondispositive”).
2

If the Plaintiff has additional questions, she may call the Clerk’s Office at [phone].
2

by email no later than five business days prior to the scheduling conference, in accordance with the
instructions in this minute order.
It is further ORDERED that the parties shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge Consent
Form (ECF No. 5) on or before October 31, 2017.
It is further ORDERED that counsel for the parties and any unrepresented non-prisoner
parties in this case are to hold a meeting and jointly prepare a proposed Scheduling Order in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) on or before October 30, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(d), only requests pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 may be submitted before the Rule 26(f) meeting,
unless otherwise ordered or directed by the Court. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A),
responses to such discovery requests must be submitted no later than 30 days after the Rule 26(f)
meeting, unless the parties stipulate or the Court orders otherwise.
The parties shall prepare the proposed Scheduling Order in accordance with the form which
may be downloaded from the Standardized Order Forms section of the Court’s website, found at
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov.
The parties shall file the proposed Scheduling Order with the Clerk’s Office, and in
accordance with District of Colorado Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Procedures, no later than five
(5) business days prior to the scheduling conference. The proposed Scheduling Order is also to
be submitted in a useable format (i.e., Word or WordPerfect only) by email to Magistrate
Judge Hegarty at [e-mail].
Parties not participating in ECF shall file their proposed Scheduling Order on paper with the
clerk’s office. However, if any party in this case is participating in ECF, it is the responsibility of
that party to file the proposed scheduling order pursuant to the District of Colorado ECF Procedures.
Please note that the Court will set the deadline for all motions raised pursuant to Fed.

3

R. Evid. 702, 703, and 704 on the same date as the dispositive motions deadline.
Any out-of-state counsel shall comply with D.C. Colo. LAttyR 3 prior to the Scheduling
Conference.
The parties are further advised that they shall not assume that the Court will grant the relief
requested in any motion. Failure to appear at a Court-ordered conference or to comply with a Courtordered deadline which has not be vacated by Court order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
In addition, before filing a motion relating to a discovery dispute, the movant must
request a conference with the Court by submitting an email, copied to all parties, to
[e-mail]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, cmt. 2015 Amendment.
Finally, the parties or counsel attending the Conference should be prepared to informally
discuss the case to determine whether early alternative dispute resolution is appropriate. There is
no requirement to submit confidential position statements/letters to the Court at the Scheduling
Conference nor to have the parties present.
Anyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse will be
required to show a valid photo identification. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 83.2(b).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement [filed September
21, 2017; ECF No. 9] is granted as set forth herein.
ORDERED and dated this 22nd day of September, 2017, in Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

4