KOCH v. SCHAPIRO

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that plaintiff's complaint [#1] is stricken from the record; defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment [#7] is denied as moot; and plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on or before May 30, 2014. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on March 31, 2014. (MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MARY JO WHITE, Chair,
)
Securities and Exchange
)
Commission
)
)
Defendant. 1
)
___________________________________ )
RANDOLPH S. KOCH,

Civil Action No. 12-1934 (PLF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss the
plaintiff’s complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. See Def.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 7
(June 17, 2013). The plaintiff, Randolph S. Koch, has filed a complaint against his former
employer, the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleging claims for failure to accommodate
his purported disabilities, as well as for discrimination and retaliation on various grounds. See
generally Compl., Dkt. No. 1 (filed Nov. 29, 2012, served on Mar. 28, 2013). The government,
in its motion and accompanying statement of material facts, initially construed Mr. Koch’s
complaint as relating to a 2011 SEC administrative complaint process that, according to the
government, had not been properly exhausted by the plaintiff. See generally Def.’s Mot.
Accordingly, the government sought dismissal based on Mr. Koch’s alleged failure to exhaust
his administrative remedies.
1

The Court has substituted Chair Mary Jo White in place of former Chair Mary L.
Schapiro pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Over the next several months, Mr. Koch filed a series of motions for extensions of
time in which to respond to the government’s motion. Finally, on February 28, 2014, he filed an
opposition asserting that the government had incorrectly identified the administrative complaint
associated with this civil action. See Pl.’s Opp. 1-3, Dkt. No. 16 (Feb. 28, 2014). The
government, in its reply, concedes that if Mr. Koch’s complaint in fact corresponds to the
particular administrative complaint referenced in his opposition, then this action would not be
barred. See Def.’s Reply 1-2, Dkt. No. 18 (Mar. 18, 2014). As a consequence, the government
suggests that the Court dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint with leave to re-file, so that Mr. Koch
can file an amended complaint that is more clearly focused on the particular events underlying
this specific administrative complaint. See id. at 2-3.
The Court construes the government’s request as a motion for a more definite
statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See FED. R. CIV. P.
12(e); see also 5C CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV.
§ 1376, at 309 (3d ed. 2004) (noting that when a “pleading is impermissibly vague, the court may
act under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(e), whichever is appropriate, without regard to how the
motion is denominated”). Rule 12(e) provides 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.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e). In
general, however, “courts are reluctant to compel a more definite statement pursuant to Rule
12(e) out of fear that such action will become a substitute for discovery.” Potts v. Howard Univ.,
269 F.R.D. 40, 42 (D.D.C. 2010).
This case presents circumstances where the application of Rule 12(e) is
appropriate. The defendant did respond to the plaintiff’s complaint by moving to dismiss it;

2

upon further briefing, however, it became apparent that the government had misunderstood the
nature of the plaintiff’s claims, and that now, with some clarification, the government concedes
that it can no longer raise its exhaustion defense. But the government cannot be faulted for its
inability to discern the plaintiff’s allegations with accuracy, as Mr. Koch has filed fourteen
separate pro se civil complaints over the past thirteen years in this Court, all stemming from the
same general set of facts surrounding his employment at the SEC and all requesting similar
relief. Accordingly, although the defendant’s understanding that a more definite statement was
required did not arise until after it had received and reviewed Mr. Koch’s opposition, the Court
concludes that affording Mr. Koch the opportunity to file an amended complaint that more
precisely explicates his factual allegations and legal claims will benefit both the parties and the
Court. See Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 984 (11th Cir. 2008)
(approving practice of district court’s sua sponte striking a plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s
answer and instructing plaintiff to file a more definite statement to promote fairness and judicial
economy) (citing Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 367 & n.5
(11th Cir. 1996)).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint [Dkt. No. 1] is STRICKEN from the record;
it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment [Dkt. No. 7] is DENIED as moot; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that on or before May 30, 2014, plaintiff shall file his
amended complaint. Such complaint shall include a short and plain statement of claim that
shows that he is entitled to relief and that distinguishes plaintiff’s claims from those that he has

3

brought in related actions. In addition, plaintiff shall clarify precisely to which administrative
complaint this action corresponds, providing the administrative claim number and the history of
the proceeding of that particular claim (and only that claim) at the SEC and the EEOC. The
Court also encourages Mr. Koch to avoid extraneous and otherwise unrelated information in
order to avoid confusion with prior litigation.
SO ORDERED.

/s/__________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: March 31, 2014

4