Deffes v. Shell Oil Company et al

Filing 16

ORDER & REASONS denying 9 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 3/16/2015. (caa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KAREN DEFFES

CIVIL ACTION

V.

NO. 15-51

SHELL OIL COMPANY ET AL.

SECTION "F"
ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is the defendants' motion for a more definite
statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).

For

the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Background
Ms. Deffes brings this suit individually and as the legal
representative of her late husband, Raymond Deffes.

Mr. Deffes

died from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in late 2014, allegedly as a
result of repeated exposure to benzene.

Ms. Deffes filed suit

against Shell Oil Company and Shell Chemical LP (collectively
Shell) alleging that from 1965 to 1989, because of his work as an
electrician at Shell facilities, her late husband came into regular
contact with benzene and benzene-containing products that led to
his death.
I.
A district court will grant a motion for a more definite
statement under Rule 12(e) when the challenged pleading "is so
vague or ambiguous that the [moving] party cannot reasonably
prepare a response."

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e).

1

The moving party "must

point out the defects complained of and the details desired."

Id.

"When evaluating a motion for a more definite statement, the Court
must

assess

the

complaint

requirements of Rule 8."

in

light

of

the

minimal

pleading

Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. McGriff, Siebels

& Williams, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 632, 633 (E.D. La. 2006).

Rule

8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief."

FED. R. CIV.

P.

8(a)(2).

"Specific

facts

are

not

necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice
of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
In light of the liberal pleading standard set forth in Rule
8(a), Rule 12(e) motions are disfavored.

Mitchell v. E-Z Way

Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir. 1959); Who Dat Yat Chat,
LLC v. Who Dat, Inc., Nos. 10-1333, 10-2296, 2012 WL 2087438, at *6
(E.D. La. June 8, 2012).

Rule 12(e) motions are generally granted

only when the complaint is "so excessively vague and ambiguous as
to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in
attempting to answer it."

Phillips v. ABB Combustion Eng'g, Inc.,

No. 13-594, 2013 WL 3155224, at *2 (E.D. La. June 19, 2013).

This

Court "has considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant a
Rule 12(e) motion."

Murungi v. Tex. Guaranteed, 646 F. Supp. 2d

804, 811 (E.D. La. 2009) (citations omitted).

2

II.
The defendants contend that the complaint is deficient because
it does not include: (1) which Shell facilities Mr. Deffes worked
at; (2) the names of his employers while he was working at the
Shell facilities; (3) the dates that he worked for each employer;
(4) which Shell facilities he visited for which employer; (5) the
dates when he visited each Shell facility for each employer; (6)
the precise work that he performed for each employer while at each
Shell facility; and (7) the sources behind the allegations of
Paragraph 21.1

Rule 8 simply does not require the specificity

1

Paragraph 21 of the complaint reads:
Shell knew that it was exposing contract workers
such as Mr. Deffes to unsafe levels of benzene but failed
to warn the contract workers or provide respiratory
protection to save costs. Shell also knew that contract
workers including electricians had abnormal blood results
as a result of benzene exposure and failed to warn other
contract workers. Shell knew that it had increase[d]
incidences of non-[H]odgkin's lymphoma of employees and
retire[e]s in 1977 but failed to warn employees and
contract workers.
Shell knew that employees with
abnormal blood results resulted in cases on non[H]odgkin's lymphoma but failed to warn contract workers
and employees or provide respiratory protection. Shell
failed to inform contract workers of cases of non[H]odgkin's lymphoma due to benzene exposure.
Shell
withheld this data evidencing increases in non[H]odgkin's lymphoma from OSHA to avoid liability.
The defendants knew or should have known about the
causal relationship between benzene and cancer-related
illnesses. The defendants failed to warn Mr. Deffes and
other similarly situated workers about the health hazards
associated with benzene.
The defendants are guilty of negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, and fault identified
throughout this complaint most specifically as follows:
3

requested by the defendants.
husband

was

exposed

to

The plaintiff alleges that her late

benzene

while

working

at

the

Shell

facilities in the Eastern District of Louisiana over the period of
several years, that the defendants failed to warn or protect Mr.
Deffes from exposure to benzene, and that he developed nonHodgkin's

lymphoma

and

eventually

defendants' action or inaction.
negligence,

gross

negligence,

died

as

a

result

of

the

She brings claims based on
strict

product

liability,

and

Louisiana Civil Code article 2317, as in existence at the time of
the benzene exposure. She sets forth the elements of each claim in
detail.
The defendants take particular issue with the fact that the
location of the Shell facilities is not included in the complaint,
likening this case to Clark v. McDonald's Corp., 213 F.R.D. 198,
233 (D.N.J. 2003).

There, the plaintiffs alleged that McDonald's

restaurants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The

"breadth of the amended complaint . . . [had] the potential to
encompass approximately 3,000 McDonald's locations."

Id. at 234.

The

court

plaintiffs'

counsel

had

admitted

to

the

that

approximately 150 restaurants had been visited and that alleged ADA
problems were found to exist in about one-third of them. Thus, the
court found that there was a "'shotgun' component to Plaintiffs'
amended

complaint,

which

d[id]

not

discriminate

between

the

restaurants known to be in violation of the ADA from those which

4

are not."

Id.

McDonald's was thus "left to guess" which of its

thousands of locations were at issue.

Id.

This case is not comparable to McDonald's.

The complaint

states that the events giving rise to the lawsuit took place in the
Eastern District of Louisiana.
complaint

clearly

refers

to

The plaintiff contends that the
the

Shell

facilities

in

Norco,

Louisiana, the only facilities in the Eastern District of Louisiana
dealing with the hazardous materials listed in the complaint, if
not the only facilities in the district generally.

The Court does

not find that the absence of the word "Norco" renders the complaint
"so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as
to prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to answer it."
Phillips, 2013 WL 3155224, at *2. The other additional information
the defendants demand the plaintiff allege is a question of
discovery.

Rash v. Bisso Marine Co., Inc., No. 13-2622, 2013 WL

5934617, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 31, 2013).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendants' motion for a
more definite statement is hereby DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, March 16, 2015

______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5