Tackett v. Bank of America NA
Filing
19
OPINION and ORDER denying 14 motion for more definite statement as to amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 6/19/13. (rew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BOBBY L. TACKETT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Civil Action 2:12-cv-1134
Judge Watson
Magistrate Judge King
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel,
filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, Motion to Stop Sale
of Home, Doc. No. 2, which the Court also deemed to serve as the
complaint.
Order, Doc. No. 6.
Defendant filed a motion for a more
definite statement, Defendants’ [sic] Motion for a More Definite
Statement, Doc. No. 8, and plaintiff filed a response, Re: Order for
More Definite Statement, Doc. No. 10.
The Court construed plaintiff’s
response as a more definite statement, but directed plaintiff to file
an amended complaint because his response did not contain a short and
plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.
Doc. No. 11.
Order,
Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint.
Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 13.
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s second motion for
a more definite statement.
Defendants’ [sic] Motion for a More
Definite Statement as to Defendant’s [sic] Amended Complaint
(“Defendant’s Motion”), Doc. No. 14.
Defendant argues that the
Amended Complaint “fails to adhere to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
1
8(a)(2) and 8(d)(1) and 10(b)” such that defendant “cannot reasonably
be required to frame an answer or other respons[ive] pleading.”
Defendant’s Motion, p. 1.
Plaintiff has not filed a response to
Defendant’s Motion.
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ̔a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief,’ in order to ̔give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”
Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
“If a pleading fails to specify the
allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant
can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before
responding.”
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002).
Motions for a more definite statement are, however, generally
disfavored, Shirk v. Fifth Third Bancorp, No. 05-cv-49, 2008 WL
4449024, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2008) (citations and quotations
omitted), and “should not be granted unless the complaint is so
excessively vague and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as to
prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to answer it.”
(citations and quotations omitted).
Id.
See also Joslin v. Metro
Nashville/Davidson Cnty., 3:12-cv-1284, 2013 WL 2250712, at *6 (M.D.
Tenn., May 21, 2013) (quoting E.E.O.C. v. FPM Grp., Ltd., 657
F.Supp.2d 957 (E.D. Tenn. 2009)).
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is two pages long, alleges that the
Court has federal question jurisdiction, and purports to bring claims
under only state law.
Although the Amended Complaint does not
2
strictly comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b), the
Court finds that it is not “so excessively vague and ambiguous as to
be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in
attempting to answer it.”
See Boco Enters., Inc. v. Selective Ins.
Co. of S.C., No. 11-13962, 2012 WL 4476510, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept.
28, 2012) (citations and quotations omitted).
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion, Doc. No. 14, is DENIED.
June 19, 2013
s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?