Aaron et al v. Medtronic Inc et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT (Doc. 13 ) AS TO THE PROPOSED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO AMEND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 9/12/2013. (mr1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

FRIEDA AARON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MEDTRONIC, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:13-cv-301
Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
(Doc. 13) AS TO THE PROPOSED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO AMEND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
This civil action is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint
(Doc. 13) and the parties’ responsive memoranda (Docs. 16 and 17).
I. BACKGROUND
This civil action was removed from the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
on May 6, 2013. (Doc. 1). Prior to the case’s removal, Plaintiffs’Amended Complaint
had already been filed. (Doc. 3). On July 25, 2013, as part of its response to Defendants’
motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, which seeks leave to amend the
original Amended Complaint and attaches a proposed First Amended Complaint. (Doc.
13).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may amend

-1-

its pleadings as a matter of course if the amendment is filed within 21 days after service
of a 12(b)(6) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). If a plaintiff wishes to file an amended
complaint after the 21 day grace period, he is required to seek leave of the court to do so,
and Rule 15 provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The United States Supreme Court has held that motions for leave to amend should
be liberally granted unless the motions are brought in bad faith or the proposed
amendments would cause undue delay, be futile, or unfairly prejudice the opposing
parties. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “A proposed amendment is futile if
the amendment could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Rose v. Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000).
In the final analysis, granting or denying a request to amend a complaint is left to
the broad discretion of the district court. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargeant & Lundy, 916 F.2d
1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990).
III. ANALYSIS
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to set forth a short and plain
statement of the claims demonstrating that the pleaders are entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2). The rule requires Plaintiffs “to edit and organize their claims and supporting
allegations into a manageable format.” Hollon v. E. Ky. Corr. Complex, No. 10-CV-177KSF, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74676, at *5 (E.D. Ky. July 22, 2010).
It is well established that prejudice to the non-moving party is the touchstone to
the denial of an amendment. Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1414 (3rd Cir. 1993).
-2-

Prejudice includes undue difficulty in prosecuting or defending a loss as the result of the
tactics of the other party. Deakyne v. Comm’rs of Lewes, 416 F.2d 290, 300 (3rd Cir.
1969). The Sixth Circuit has also strongly discouraged courts from granting parties leave
to file amended complaints that are substantially similar to the original or first amended
complaint. Taylor Group v. ANR Storage, 24 Fed. App’x 319, 321 (6th Cir. 2001).
The practice of incorporating by reference allegations in a separate proceeding is
inappropriate and violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). See United States v. Int’l
Longshoreman’s Ass’n, 518 F. Supp. 2d 422, 464 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (the “Court should not
be required to read through six different pleadings […] in addition to various peripheral
documents, in order to decipher the basic elements of the Government’s claim in this
action, nor should the defendants be expected to undertake such an endeavor in preparing
an Answer to the Amended Complaint”); see also Davis v. Bifani, No. 07-cv-00122MEH-BNB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30080, at *3 (D. Colo. Apr. 24, 2007) (“the Court
does not believe that it is proper to incorporate by reference wholesale the allegations in a
complaint in a completely separate action […] Such a practice violates the requirements
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)”). Courts have repeatedly upheld the dismissal of RICO
complaints and/or denied leave to amend for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8’s
pleading requirements. 1 “[A]lthough RICO complaints often might need to be somewhat

1

See Plymale v. Freeman, No. 90-2202, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 6996 (6th Cir. Apr. 12,
1991) (district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice “rambling” 119page complaint containing nonsensical claims); Confederate Mem’l Ass’n v. Hines, 995 F.2d
295, 298 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (noting the dismissal of RICO claim by district court for failure to
comply with Rule 8(a)); Resource N.E. of Long Island, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 28 F.Supp.2d
786, 795 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (dismissing an “excessively long-winded” RICO complaint for
-3-

longer than many complaints, RICO complaints must meet the requirements of Rule
8[…]” Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merch. Services, Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 776 (7th Cir. 1994).
See also Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co, 651 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1981); Infanti v. Scharpf,
No. 06 CV 6552(ILG), 2008 WL 2397607 (E.D.N.Y June 10, 2008).
By contrast, and much like Plaintiffs’ original Amended Complaint, the proposed
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is largely unintelligible, inappropriately incorporates
by reference numerous allegations from other civil cases in violation of the rules, and is
anything but short and plain. The proposed FAC references two exhibits, one that is
purported to contain “medical malpractice claims filed by these Plaintiffs” and another
that is purported to contain “the narratives of the Plaintiffs who have not yet filed a
lawsuit.” (Doc. 13-2 at ¶¶ 6-7). The practice of “‘incorporating’ hundreds of pages of
prior pleadings,” without “guidance as to which specific allegations are intended to be
deemed incorporated, fails to satisfy” Plaintiffs’ burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and
forces Defendants and the Court to pick through allegations and facts contained in
numerous pages of unrelated cases and other documents without giving any notice of
which allegations or information Plaintiffs intend to use to support their claims. Int’l
Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 518 F. Supp. 2d at 466.
violation of Civil Rule 8); Cardional Vines Carter v. Twin Valley Behavior, No. 2:12-cv-795,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168064, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 27, 2012) (“courts should not grant leave
to amend where the amendment would be futile […] In other words, amendments need not be
granted if the amended complaint would not survive an initial screen or a motion to dismiss”);
Hill v. Bank of Am., Inc., 512 Fed. Appx. 905, 907 (11th Cir. 2013) (the “court may also deny
leave to amend where the plaintiff fails to show that the amended complaint satisfies Rule 8(a)”);
Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 800 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding a district court was well within its
discretion to deny the motion for leave to amend where the plaintiff was in violation of Rule
8(a)).
-4-

Further demonstrating its unintelligibility, the proposed FAC also purports to
incorporate documents that are not “written instruments” in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P.
10(c). “An ‘instrument’ […] defines rights, duties, entitlements, or liabilities.’”
Copeland v. Aerisyn, LLC, No. 1:10–CV–78, 2011 WL 2181497, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. June
3, 2011) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)). Plaintiffs’ various attached
complaints and narratives are not “instruments” but rather constitute precisely the type of
“lengthy or numerous exhibits containing extraneous […] material [that] should not be
attached to the pleadings.” 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice &
Procedure § 1327 (3rd. ed. 2009).
Finally, the proposed FAC further multiplies the Amended Complaint’s failure to
provide particularized allegations for each of the Plaintiffs by adding numerous new
Plaintiffs without providing any specific allegations on their behalf. (Doc. 13-2 at ¶ 2).
Many of the Plaintiffs’ names appear nowhere other than in the list of purported
Plaintiffs. “The costs of […] litigation and the increasing caseload of the federal courts
counsel against sending the parties into discovery when there is no reasonable likelihood
that the plaintiffs can construct a claim from the events related in the complaint.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombley, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007) (quoting Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford
Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984)). It is well-settled law that named
plaintiffs may not rely on general class allegations to support their claims, but rather must
show that each, individually, is entitled to relief. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 502
(1975); Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, 155 F.3d 644, 659 (3rd Cir. 1998).
If each Plaintiff can state a plausible claim against Defendants, any amended complaint
-5-

must allege the specific facts “showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2).
The arguments raised in Defendants’ memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’
motion to amend regarding the proposed FAC’s violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 are well
taken and the Court draws Plaintiffs’ careful attention to them. Nevertheless, the Court is
cognizant of the interests of justice and of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15’s mandate that “[t]he court
should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, based on the foregoing:
1. As to the proposed First Amended Complaint (Doc. 13-2), Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Amend the Complaint (Doc. 13) is DENIED;
2. Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file a First Amended Complaint that complies
with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 as described herein and in Defendants’
memorandum in opposition to this motion. Plaintiffs’ failure to amend properly,
as ordered and pursuant to rule, may be cause for dismissal; and
3. Consequently, the pending motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and the
related motion for oral argument (Docs. 6 and 11) are DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/12/13

s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

-6-