Cole et al v. BNSF Railway Company

Filing 10

ORDER denying 7 Motion for More Definite Statement. See attached document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 1/8/2013. (ajt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WAVIE C COLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 3:12-cv-01185-GPM-PMF

ORDER
FRAZIER, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Defendant BNSF Railway Company’s (Doc. 7) motion for a more
definite statement made pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the
following reasons, the (Doc. 7) motion for a more definite statement is denied.
“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). “Such relief applies to a small class of pleadings that, though
sufficiently intelligible for the court to be able to make out one or more potentially viable legal
theories on which the claimant might proceed, nonetheless are so vague or ambiguous that the
opposing party cannot respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith or without prejudice to
himself.” Land O'Lakes Purina Feed, LLC v. WelkCo, LLC., 10-891, 2011 WL 1465632, 2
(S.D.Ill. April 18, 2011) (quotations omitted) (citing Vician v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No.
05–cv–144, 2006 WL 694740, 9 (N.D.Ind. Mar.16, 2006); Metso Paper, Inc. v. Enerquin Air
Inc., No. 06–C–1170, 2007 WL 486635, 5 (E.D.Wis. Feb.12, 2007) (“Rule 12(e) motions are
generally disfavored and are not intended as a substitute for the normal discovery process.”)
(brackets and quotation omitted); Parus v. Cator, No. 05–C–0063–C, 2005 WL 1458770, 3
1

(W.D.Wis. June 17, 2005) (noting that “Rule 12(e) motions are rarely granted” and that “judges
are admonished to exercise their discretion sparingly in ordering more definite statements.”)).
“Thus, if a plaintiff's complaint is sufficiently definite to enable a defendant to know what is
charged, it is sufficient to withstand a Rule 12(e) motion.” Id. (citations omitted).
Defendant BNSF has filed the instant (Doc. 7) motion for a more definite statement
asserting the Plaintiff’s complaint has failed “to provide sufficient information for Defendant to
respond and/or to enable it to raise defenses or other matters which may be appropriate such as
filing a 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) regarding venue or a Rule 20 motion regarding improper joinder.”
Doc. 7. The Plaintiffs have responded by claiming that Defendant is using its Rule 12(e) motion
for an improper purpose because, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, neither a motion to
change venue or a motion attacking joinder is a “responsive pleading” to the Plaintiff’s
complaint. See Doc. 9 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 7, 8, and 12). The Court agrees. The Plaintiffs’
complaint is sufficiently definite to enable Defendant BNSF to know what is charged. The
information Defendant BNSF seeks can be acquired by performing some initial discovery.
For the forgoing reasons, Defendant BNSF’s (Doc. 7) motion for a more definite
statement is denied. Defendant BNSF shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint in
accordance with Rule 12(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 8, 2013.

s/ Philip M. Frazier
PHILIP M. FRAZIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2