WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. BBMJ, LLC et al

Filing 41

ORDER re 12 MOTION for More Definite Statement and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Defendants is DENIED. CHRISTOPHER G. MOHR, KEITH BROOKING, BBMJ, LLC, DOUGLAS JOHNSON, JR., WILLIAM BROOKS shall file their answers to complaint w/n 14 days from the date of this order. (Answer due by 2/23/2012.). Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 2/10/2012. (jws)

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
WELLS FARGO BANK NA,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00127-MP-GRJ

BBMJ, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite
Statement. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) brought the
instant suit for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against defendants BBMJ, LLC,
William Brooks, Keith Brooking, Christopher G. Mohr, and Douglas Johnson, Jr. Wells
Fargo alleges that BBMJ violated the terms of two loans that they made to it, and that
Brooks, Brooking, Mohr, and Johnson violated their personal guarantees to repay the
loans. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion for more definite statement should
be denied.
Wells Fargo is the successor-by-merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A., which made
two loans to BBMJ, one for $1,395,000.00 and one for $695,000.00. (Doc. 1 at 3). The
loans were secured by two promissory notes executed by BBMJ on August 12, 2008.
(Doc. 1 at 2-3). As inducement for Wells Fargo to make the loans to BBMJ, Brooks,
Brooking, Mohr, and Johnson each guaranteed to pay all obligations of BBMJ to Wells
Fargo under the notes. (Doc. 1 at 4-5). According to Wells Fargo, BBMJ has defaulted
on the loans and the guarantors have failed to fulfill their obligations to pay under their

Page 2 of 4

guarantees. According to the defendants, Wells Fargo’s complaint “is vague,
ambiguous, and at times contradictory, to the extent that defendants cannot
reasonabl[y] be required to frame a responsive pleading . . .” (Doc. 13 at 1).
Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] party may
move for a more definite statement of a pleading . . . which is so vague or ambiguous
that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before
filing a responsive pleading . . .” The typical scenario in which a motion for a more
definite statement is appropriate is when a plaintiff submits a so-called “shotgun”
pleading. See Anderson v. District Bd. Of Trustees of Cent. Florida Community
Community College, 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). Such pleadings are normally
jumbled and unorganized, such “that it is virtually impossible to know which allegations
of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” Id. As Wells Fargo notes in its
response to defendants’ motion, this Court has previously recognized that “[a] motion
for a more definite statement ‘attacks unintelligibility in a pleading, not simply mere lack
of detail.’” Hurtado v. North Florida Health Care Assocs., LLC, 2010 WL 5055939, at *2
(N.D. Fla. 2010) (citing Davis v. Santa Barbara High School District, 48 F. Supp. 2d
1225, 1228 (C.D. Cal. 1998)). In light of liberal discovery practices, motions for a more
definite statement are generally disfavored. See Ardaman & Assocs., Inc v. Travelers
Cas. And Sur. Co. of Am., 2009 WL 161203, at *3 (N.D. Fla. 2009).
Defendants present two arguments as to why they believe a motion for more
definite statement is warranted. First, they argue that the complaint is overly ambiguous
because it “does not state what payments have not been made [on the loans], their
amounts, or their alleged due date(s).” (Doc. 1 at 2). The lack of these specific details
Case No: 1:11-cv-00127-MP-GRJ

Page 3 of 4

does not justify the grant of a motion for more definite statement. As noted, the purpose
of a more definite statement is to rectify unintelligibility in a complaint, not to provide
more details that can reasonably be left to discovery. Here, Wells Fargo has made the
straight-forward claim that BBMJ failed to make required loan payments as agreed in
the contract between Wells Fargo and BBMJ. It cannot be said that the lack of details
regarding the amounts and due dates of these payments renders the complaint so
unintelligible as to make it impossible for defendants to frame a responsive pleading.
Defendants go on to describe what they consider to be another ambiguity in the
complaint. When alleging that BBMJ has breached the loan agreements under the
notes, Wells Fargo states that BBMJ is in breach for, “among other things, failure to
make payments when due.” (Doc. 1 at 5-6). Along similar lines, when alleging that the
guarantors have breached their agreements to repay the loans, Wells Fargo alleges that
each guarantor is “in breach under the terms of the Guaranty for, among other things,
failure to pay the amounts owing on the [l]oans.” (Doc. 1 at 7-10). Defendants claim
that the use of the phrase “among other things” renders Wells Fargo’s complaint
unintelligible because it suggests that there are other grounds for breach without giving
defendants sufficient notice of those grounds. However, a review of the record puts this
phrase in context and removes any ambiguity. In its complaint, Wells Fargo refers to a
letter that it sent to defendants notifying them of a breach under the notes. (Doc. 1 at
4). The letter states:
Pursuant to Notes, BBMJ, LLC . . . is required to deliver to Wells Fargo “such
information as [Wells Fargo] may reasonably request from time to time,
including without limitation, financial statements and information relating to
Borrower’s financial condition.” Pursuant to the guarantees of the Notes, each
guarantor . . . is required to deliver annual personal financial statements to
Case No: 1:11-cv-00127-MP-GRJ

Page 4 of 4

Wells Fargo. (Doc. 1, Exhibit D).
The letter goes on to inform defendants that they are in breach of these provisions of
the notes and guarantees. Further, it is clear from the text of the present motion that
defendants are aware of the contents of the letter and Wells Fargo’s allegation of
breach on these grounds. (Doc. 12 at 2). When Wells Fargo uses the phrase “among
other things,” it is reasonable to infer that it means the alleged failure of defendants to
provide financial statements as agreed under the notes and guarantees.
In light of the above considerations, it cannot be said that Wells Fargo’s
complaint is so ambiguous as to render it unintelligible.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ motion for more definite statement, (Doc. 12) is DENIED.
2. Defendants BBMJ, LLC, William Brooks, Keith Brooking, Christopher G. Mohr
and Douglas Johnson, Jr. shall file their answers to the complaint within fourteen (14)
days from the date of this order.
DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of February 2012.

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-00127-MP-GRJ