Olausen v. Murguia et al

Filing 59

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 6/5/2014, denying 44 Motion for More Definite Statement. Plaintiff's opposition to 31 Motion to Dismiss due by 6/19/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA JOHN S. OLAUSEN, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SGT. MURGUIA, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) PRESENT: 3:13-cv-00388-MMD-VPC MINUTES OF THE COURT June 5, 2014 THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: LISA MANN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS: Before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust and/or in the alternative motion for summary judgment (#31). 1 Plaintiff did not file an opposition, but instead filed a motion for a more definite statement and/or motion to strike and/or motion to stay for discovery (#44). Defendants opposed (#46), and plaintiff replied (#47). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides, in pertinent part: 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. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. Not only is a motion for more definite statement disfavored, see U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Alia Corp., 842 F.Supp.2d 1243, 1250 (E.D. Cal. 2012); C.B. v. Sonora School Dist., 691 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1191 (E.D. Cal. 2010), it does not appear that a motion for more definite statement may be directed toward another motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Moreover, a pleading that is the subject 1 Refers to the court’s docket numbers. of the motion must be unintelligible and not just lacking in some detail. See Neveu v. City of Fresno, 392 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1169 (E.D. Cal. 2005); Gregory Village Partners, L.P. v. Chevron, USA, Inc., 805 F.Supp.2d 888, 896 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“A motion for more definite statement attacks intelligibility, not simply lack of detail.”). “Where the [pleading] is specific enough to [apprise] the responding party of the substance of the claim [or defense] being asserted or where the detail sought is otherwise obtainable through discovery, a motion for a more definite statement should be denied.” See U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Alia Corp., 842 F.Supp.2d at 1250 (citation omitted). Here, plaintiff complains that defendants’ motion is based on “apparent false and fraudulent evidence” (#44, p. 4). Defendants are correct that (1) plaintiff’s motion is procedurally improper; (2) plaintiff fails to point to any statements in defendants’ motion where the arguments are so vague or ambiguous that it is impossible to respond; (3) plaintiff essentially seeks an admission of liability and concessions to his claims; and (4) plaintiff’s arguments/complaints should be set forth in an opposition, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a more definite statement (#44) is DENIED. Plaintiff SHALL FILE his opposition, if any, to defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment (#31) within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. Defendants shall file their reply, if any, within the timeframe set forth in the Local Rules. LR 7-2(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK By: /s/ Deputy Clerk

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?