Wilson v. Comcast Cable

Filing 19

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT; granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion to Dismiss; denying 15 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONETTE WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 14-12218
COMCAST CABLE,
Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
Defendant.

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Ronnette Wilson, who is proceeding pro se, instituted the present
civil action against Defendant Comcast Cable by filing a complaint on June 5,
2014. Upon reviewing this complaint to ensure that the Court possessed
jurisdiction, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended pleading by June 20,
2014, as the threadbare complaint, which sought to state a claim under the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), contained virtually no factual
enhancement. Plaintiff complied with this Order and, on June 20, 2014, filed an
amended pleading. This amended pleading contains more factual enhancement,
however, it bears the title of a motion to amend. On July 17, 2014, Defendant filed
a Motion to Dismiss or for an Order Requiring Service of a Proper Complaint. In

this motion, Defendant seeks either dismissal for improper service pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and for Plaintiff’s purported failure to
comply with the Court’s previous Order, or, in the alternative, asks this Court to
provide Plaintiff with a definite period of time to serve on Defendant an amended
complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also pending
before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s pleadings. Having
determined that oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process,
the Court dispensed with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan
Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s
Motion on its alternative basis of relief and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.
In its Motion, Defendant primarily objects to the form of Plaintiff’s June 20,
2014 filing.1 Having analyzed these objections, the Court concludes that Plaintiff
must file a second amended complaint and that the filing must be labeled as a
“Second Amended Complaint.” This second amended complaint should also name
Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC as the defendant, not merely
Comcast Cable. Further, the second amended complaint “must state its claims . . .
in numbered paragraphs[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Lastly, this second amended
complaint must be signed by Plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (“The court must

1

The Court uses the modifier “primarily” because Defendant’s objection to
the improper service is rendered moot by its “willing[ness] to accept service
through its undersigned counsel.” (Def.’s Br. 4.)
2

strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being
called to the . . . party’s attention.”).2 The Court notes that, contrary to
Defendant’s suggestion, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint need not contain “a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” as the Court
has already determined that it possesses jurisdiction over the instant action. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Had the Court lacked jurisdiction, it would have questioned the
basis for jurisdiction in its previous Order. That Plaintiff’s claim arises under the
ADA, a federal statute, provides the requisite jurisdictional statement.
Plaintiff shall file her second amended complaint in accordance with the
directives set forth in the previous paragraph on or before SEPTEMBER 23,
2014. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s
case without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because Defendant
has indicated a “willing[ness] to accept service through its undersigned counsel[,]”
(Def.’s Br. 4), Plaintiff need only submit her second amended complaint to the
Court, as defense counsel will automatically receive a copy of the filing once it is
docketed.
Accordingly,

2

Despite being on notice of this signing requirement by virtue of
Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff failed to correct this deficiency. Plaintiff did,
however, sign two subsequent filings submitted to this Court.
3

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff is
ORDERED to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this Order on
or before SEPTEMBER 23, 2014;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
Dated: September 9, 2014
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Ronnette Wilson
634 Constitution Street
Canton, MI 48188
Eric J. Pelton, Esq.

4