HANS BIOMED HUMAN TISSUE ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES INC

Filing 60

ORDER granting 42 MOTION to Dismiss or For More Definite Statement and Incorporated Memorandum in Support filed by REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES INC, granting 48 MOTION for Leave to File Unopposed Motion to F ile Ru le 7.1(B) Certificate Out of Time in Support of Defendant Regeneration Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement and Incorporated Memorandum MOTION for Leave to File Unopposed Motion to File Ru le 7.1(B) Certificate Out of Time in Support of Defendant Regeneration Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement and Incorporated Memorandum filed by REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES INC, DENYING 47 MOTION to Strike or for Leave to File Reply Brief, etc. filed by REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES INC, ( Amended Pleadings due by 10/17/2008.). Signed by JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 9/30/08. (bkp)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION HANS BIOMED HUMAN TISSUE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT This cause comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint or alternatively for more definite statement (doc. 42), Plaintiff's response in opposition (doc. 46), Defendant's motion to strike (doc. 47), and Defendant's unopposed motion to file certificate of time (doc. 48). The Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds as follows: 1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is a "shot gun" pleading in that each CASE NO.: 1:07cv177-SPM/AK

successive count incorporates all of the allegations of the previous counts. Magulta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). 2. Although the amended complaint is shorter than the complaints

criticized in the opinions cited, because Plaintiff has alleged claims for torts that

Page 2 of 2

must be independent of a breach of contract, identification of the facts supporting each claim is imperative. 3. When a pleading makes it virtually impossible to determine which

allegations support separate claims for relief, a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) is the appropriate cure. Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trustees of Cent. Fla. Cmty Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. is granted. 2. Plaintiff shall have up to and including October 17, 2008, to file a Defendant's alternative motion for more definite statement (doc. 42)

second amended complaint. 3. denied. 4. Defendant's motion to file certificate out of time (doc. 48) is granted. Defendant's motion to strike or leave to file a reply (doc. 47) is

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2008.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle
Stephan P. Mickle United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 1:07cv177-SPM/AK