Quintero Community Association Inc. et al v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Hillcrest Bank et al
ORDER granting 31 motion for more definite statement. Plaintiffs shall file an amended petition on or before May 25, 2012. Plaintiffs' current discovery request is stricken. Plaintiffs are ordered to resubmit its request for interrogatories to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed on 5/18/12 by District Judge Greg Kays. (Francis, Alexandra)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
HILLCREST BANK, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Pending before the Court is a “Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion for More
Definite Statement” (Doc. 31) on behalf of Hillcrest Bancshares and its individual directors, 1
“Suggestions in Support” (Doc. 32), Plaintiffs’ “Joint Suggestions in Opposition” (Doc. 37), and
Defendants’ “Reply Suggestions” (Doc. 43).
The Court agrees with Defendants that the
pleadings are so vague and ambiguous that Defendants cannot properly prepare a response. The
Court also finds that the consolidation of the Hillcrest Bank case and the case against the
Hillcrest Bank board of Directors, without the filing of an amended petition, has made the record
confusing for all parties.
To remedy this, the Court orders Plaintiffs to file an amended petition, as the state court
ordered them to do before the case was removed. This amended petition should include all
allegations against all Defendants, except those for whom a default judgment has already been
rendered. Additionally, the amended petition should set forth each claim clearly and concisely,
noting which allegations it brings against which Defendant and which facts support those
The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) is brought on behalf of Hillcrest Bancshares and the following directors:
Wheeler, Asner, Blitt, Campbell, J. Fingersh, P. Fingerish, White, Degen, Gervy, Richards, Davies, Lieberman,
Forgey, Davis, Holdeman, Schwartzkopf, Gallatin, and Schneider.
allegations. Failure to do so in a clear and concise manner, with sufficient allegations to support
each claim, may result in dismissal of certain claims or Defendants. No further amendments will
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiffs shall file their amended petition on or before May
25, 2012. Defendants will then have twenty-one days from the filing of Plaintiffs’ amended
petition, within which to answer or otherwise respond to the amended petition. In all subsequent
motions, the parties should refer only to the May 25, 2012 amended petition. No reference
should be made to earlier petitions.
The Court also notes that many of Plaintiffs’ interrogatories contain more than 25 written
interrogatories, including additional subparts, and therefore fail to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.
33(a)(1). Thus, the Court strikes Plaintiffs’ current discovery request and orders Plaintiffs to
resubmit its request for interrogatories to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Finally, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding any other outstanding
discovery issues pursuant to Rule 37 after the amended petition is filed. The Court strongly
encourages the parties to cooperate in resolving these issues so as to not involve the Court unless
absolutely necessary. Any previous orders regarding discovery are hereby superseded by this
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: May 18, 2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?