Martinez v. Miami Children's Health System, Inc. et al

Filing 55

ORDER ON MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT: granting 49 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 5/9/2022. See attached document for full details. (pc)

Case 1:21-cv-22700-BB Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2022 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-22700-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
EDDY MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIAMI CHILDREN’S HEALTH SYSTEM,
INC. and NICKLAUS CHILDREN’S HEALTH
SYSTEM EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE POLICY,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Eddy Martinez’s
(“Plaintiff” or “Martinez”) Motion for a More Definite Statement, ECF No. [49] (“Motion”).
Defendant’s Miami Children’s Health System, Inc. and Nicklaus Children’s Health System
Executive Severance Policy (together, “NCHS” or “Defendants”) filed a Response, ECF No. [50],
to which Plaintiff filed a Reply, ECF No. [52].1 The Court has carefully considered the party’s
submissions, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the
reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.
This case concerns Martinez’s alleged wrongful termination for cause from Nicklaus
Children’s Hospital, without severance pay, and defamatory statements made after his firing. ECF
No. [1-2] ¶ 8. On January 10, 2022, NCHS filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, which also
asserts a counterclaim against Martinez. See ECF No. [42] (“Counterclaim”). On February 4, 2022,

The Court set the Motion for hearing on May 9, 2022. See ECF No. [51]. Upon Defendants’ unopposed
request, the Court continued the hearing to be reset at a later date. See ECF No. [54]. In order to avoid
further delay, the Court has reviewed the Motion and associated filings and enters this Order, rather than
resetting the hearing.
1

Case 1:21-cv-22700-BB Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2022 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 21-cv-22700-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
when Martinez failed to timely respond to the Counterclaim, the Court entered an order directing
Martinez to file his response by February 4, 2022. ECF No. [43] (“Order”). Following another
extension of time, see ECF No. [45], Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on April 8, 2022.
In the Motion, Martinez argues that he cannot respond to the Counterclaim because he
cannot discern on whose behalf the Counterclaim is asserted, since “Nicklaus Children’s Health
System” is not a party in this case, and the Counterclaim identifies another non-party, “Nicklaus
Children’s Hospital,” in its Introduction section. See ECF No. [42] ¶ 2. In response, NCHS asserts
that the Motion should be denied because Martinez failed to confer prior to filing, and that in any
event, any confusion asserted by him with respect to which entity is asserting the Counterclaim is
belied by his own references to NCHS in this case and publicly available information. Defendants
request that the Court award them their fees and costs associated with responding to the Motion.
Under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “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). Since
courts have liberally construed the pleading standard under Rule 8(a), “a short and plain statement”
will be enough, unless upon motion it is shown that the pleading “is so ambiguous that a party
cannot reasonably” respond. Betancourt v. Marine Cargo Mgmt., Inc., 930 F. Supp. 606, 608 (S.D.
Fla. 1996). “The purpose of the pleading standards under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 8 is to
strike at unintelligibility rather than want of detail and allegations that are unclear due to a lack of
specificity are more appropriately clarified by discovery rather than by an order for a more definite
statement.” Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., v. IFITNESS, Inc., No. 12-20125, 2012 WL 1120925, at
*6 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Nevertheless, “[a] Rule
12(e) motion is appropriate if the pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot

2

Case 1:21-cv-22700-BB Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2022 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 21-cv-22700-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith, without prejudice to itself.” Euro RSCG Direct
Response, LLC v. Green Bullion Fin. Servs., 872 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (citations
and alteration omitted).
At the outset, the Court notes that a motion for more definite statement is not excepted
from the pre-filing conference requirement in the Local Rules. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3)
(applying to “any motion in a civil case” and listing exceptions). Nor was the pre-filing conference
requirement obviated by the Court’s requiring a response to the Counterclaim, as Plaintiff suggests.
See ECF No. [52] at 5. Pursuant to Rule 12, “[a] party must serve an answer to a counterclaim . . .
within 21 days of being served with the pleading that states the counterclaim[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(a)(1)(B). When Plaintiff failed to timely comply, the Court entered its Order requiring Plaintiff
to file a response to the Counterclaim. The Order did not otherwise excuse Plaintiff from the
conferral requirement. The parties are represented by talented attorneys who have much experience
practicing in the Southern District of Florida. As such, each should be well acquainted with the
requirement of eliminating disputes by reasonable agreement to the fullest extent oermitted by the
bounds of zealous representation and ethical practice. Indeed, as to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3), “[t]he
purpose of the rule is to ensure judicial economy and prevent courts from considering issues the
parties could agree on independently, and to ascertain whether the Court need wait for a response
from the opposing party before deciding the motion.” Aguilar v. United Floor Crew, Inc., No. 14CIV-61605, 2014 WL 6751663, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2014). Upon review, it is evident that had
the parties meaningfully conferred in this instance, the issue raised in the pending Motion would
have been resolved.
Instead, the Court now expends the necessary time and resources to resolve an issue which
the parties could have resolved, even after the Motion was filed and scheduled by the Court to be

3

Case 1:21-cv-22700-BB Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2022 Page 4 of 4
Case No. 21-cv-22700-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
heard. And despite Defendants’ opposition, the Court finds the Motion to be well-taken. First,
nowhere in the Answer or Counterclaim do Defendants identify that “Nicklaus Children’s Health
System” is a fictitious name for Miami Children’s Health System, Inc., and Plaintiff is under no
duty to perform independent research to confirm the existence or owner of a fictitious name in
these circumstances. Second, the Answer identifies Miami Children’s Health System, Inc. and
Nicklaus Children’s Health System Executive Severance Policy together as “NCHS,” see ECF No.
[42] at 1; at the same time that the Counterclaim is asserted by Nicklaus Children’s Health System
as “NCHS.” See id. at 11. Moreover, the Counterclaim identifies Martinez as a party, and then
refers to “Nicklaus Children’s Hospital,” which is not a party in the instant case. Id. at 11, ¶ 2.
Thus, Plaintiff’s confusion is understandable. The Counterclaim is inartfully pleaded and unclear
on its face, notwithstanding the additional context and materials provided by Defendants in
response to the Motion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [49], is
GRANTED. Defendants shall file their Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Amended
Counterclaim clearly setting forth the party/parties asserting the Counterclaim, no later than May
23, 2022. Thereafter, Plaintiff shall file his response to the Counterclaim, no later than June 2,
2022.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 9, 2022.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

4