Hall v. Aqua-Chem, Inc. et al

Filing 162

ORDER MOOTING 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. MOOTING 22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; 26 Motion to Dismiss; 28 Motion to Dismiss; 36 Motion to Dismiss; 83 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; 136 Mo tion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; 149 Motion to Dismiss. ; DENYING IN PART AND MOOTING IN PART 41 Motion for More Definite Statement. GRANTING 114 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT 88 Motion to Dismiss and GRANTING 160 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 6/20/14. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
VAN L. HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
AQUA-CHEM, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-28-DGW-SCW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
On June 13, 2014, a hearing was held on the pending motions in this matter and, for the
reasons set forth at the hearing and below, the following is hereby ORDERED:
1.

The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Delphi Corporation on January 16, 2014

(Doc. 15) is MOOT in light of the stipulation of dismissal filed on April 8, 2014 (Doc. 96).1
2. The Motions to Dismiss Counts IV and V filed by Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Warren Pumps, LLC,
Imo Industries, Inc., Foster Wheeler, LLC, John Crane Inc., General Electric Company, and CBS
Corporation (Docs. 22, 26, 28, 36, 83, 136, and 149) are MOOT in light of Plaintiff’s
representation that those Counts will be dismissed as to the moving parties.
3. The Motion for More Definite Statement and Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
filed by Ingersoll-Rand Company (Doc. 41) is DENIED in part and found as MOOT in part.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff “aggregates allegations against several defendants in a
single, unspecific statement” thus violating notice pleading requirements.
1

To satisfy a

As noted in the Scheduling Order, the parties have until June 23, 2014 to object to any stipulation
of dismissal that has already been filed. To the extent that a party does object to a stipulation that
is relevant to the motions ruled on by this Order, the Court will reconsider the rulings upon motion
of a party.
Page 1 of 3

notice-pleading standard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED.R.CIV.P.
8(a)(2). In other words, the Plaintiff’s complaint must be sufficient to provide the Defendant with
fair notice of the Plaintiff’s claim and its basis. See Indep. Trust Corp. v. Stewart Info. Serv.
Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934 (7th Cir.2012), citing Ericson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007), quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) allows a party to move for a more definite statement
of a claim when a pleading “is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a
response.” The motion must “point out the defects complained of and the details desired.” Id.
“Encouraging a plaintiff to plead what few facts can be easily provided and will clearly be helpful
serves to expedite resolution by quickly alerting the defendant to basic, critical factual allegations
(that is, by providing ‘fair notice’ of the Plaintiff’s claim).” EEOC v. Concentra Health Servs. Inc.,
496 F.3d 773, 779–80 (7th Cir.2007). It is enough to name the Plaintiff and the Defendant, state
the nature of the grievance, and give a few details that will let the Defendant investigate. Id.;
See also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512–13 (2002); McDonald v. Household
International, Inc., 425 F.3d 424, 427–28 (7th Cir.2005). The Seventh Circuit considers Rule
12(e) one of several “tools” the district court may use to require additional specificity in a
pleading. Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir.2003). The details Defendant requires
can be acquired through discovery. Plaintiff has stated a claim: additional facts are not necessary
at this stage of the litigation. In addition, as noted in this Court’s scheduling Order, Plaintiff is
required to file an amended complaint once the evidence reveals more detail as to the allegedly
culpable parties.

2

Defendant further argues that Count V (intentional spoliation of evidence) should be
dismissed. In light of Plaintiff’s representation that this Count will be dismissed as to this
Defendants, the Motion is MOOT in part.
5. The Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Carrier Corp. on April 24,
2014 (Doc. 114) is GRANTED.

Carrier Corporation’s deadline for responding to written

discovery propounded by Plaintiff is extended to May 9, 2014.
6. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Crane Co. on March 25, 2014 (Doc. 88) is TAKEN UNDER
ADVISEMENT and the Motion for Leave to File Out of Time filed by Van L Hall on June 18,
2014 (Doc. 160) is GRANTED. Plaintiff to file his response by June 27, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 20, 2014

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

3