DIRECTV LLC v. WELLS et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants are Ordered to provide a more definite statement of their counterclaims within 14 days of the entry and filing of this Order. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 5/20/2013. (bcl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
DIRECTV, LLC, a California limited
Liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
STANLEY WELLS d/b/a WELLS
ENTERPRISES and
CHATTAHOOCHEEONLINE.COM;
TRIPOLIE S. WELLS, a/k/a TRIPOLI
SCOTT and d/b/a DIGITAL
CONNECTIONS and
JAZZMIN WELLS, d/b/a DIGITAL
CONNECTIONS,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO.: 1:13-CV-28 (WLS)

ORDER
By Order dated April 4, 2013, the Court informed Defendants, who are
attempting to appear pro se, that they would have thirty days to inform the Court as to
any basis for representing their business entities without legal representation. (Doc. 15.)
On May 3, 2013, Defendants Stanley Wells and Tripolie Wells filed a response to said
order.

(Doc. 20.)

Therein, Defendants S. Wells and T. Wells stated that Wells

Enterprises and Digital Connections, respectively, are sole proprietorships rather than
partnerships. Defendants did not provide the Court with any information on Defendant
Jazzmin Wells’ status as it relates to Digital Connections.
After reviewing Defendants’ response, the Court is currently satisfied that
Defendant S. Wells and T. Wells can represent Wells Enterprises and Digital
Connections, respectively, in their capacities as sole proprietors of these entities. The

Court further concludes that Jazzmin Wells, in her individual capacity, may proceed pro
se.1
In their response to the Court’s order, Defendants also request that they be
allowed to provide a more definite statement of their counterclaims. (Doc. 20 at 2.) On
April 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss wherein it requested that, in the
alternative, Defendants be ordered to file a more definite statement of their
counterclaims. (Doc. 17 at 5.) Per Plaintiff, “[i]n their current form, the counterclaims
are so vague and ambiguous that DIRECTV cannot reasonably prepare a response.”
(Id.)
Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
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.
Whether to grant such a motion is within the sound discretion of the Court. United
States v. Metro Dev. Corp., 61 F.R.D. 83, 85 (1973). Because Defendants have requested
the opportunity to file a more definite statement, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s
Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 17) and DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17). Defendants are hereby ORDERED to provide a
more definite statement of their counterclaims within fourteen (14) days of the
entry and filing of this Order.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of May, 2013.

Nothing in this order, however, precludes the Court from later revisiting the
representation issues should the record produce any information demonstrating that
these individuals are not entitled to proceed pro se.
1

2

/s/ W. Louis Sands
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3