LAMB et al v. RICHARDS SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 8 Motion for More Definite Statement, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 12/8/2017. (dlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE LAMB, JR, and TRACY LAMB,
h/w,
Case No. 3:17-cv-28
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
)
)
v.
)
)
RICHARDS SNOW AND ICE
REMOVAL, and SAMUEL RICHARDS,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.
Introduction
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement
(ECF No. 8). The present case arises from Plaintiff George Lamb, Jr. ("Mr. Lamb") and Tracy
Lamb's ("Mrs. Lamb") allegations that Mr. Lamb slipped and fell on snow and/or ice. (See ECF
No. 1.) Defendants contend that the "vague and ambiguous nature of plaintiffs' Complaint
precludes defendants from preparing a reasonable response." (ECF No. 9 at 2.)
For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement (ECF No.
8) is DENIED.
II.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1332 because both Plaintiffs are alleged
to be citizens of the State of New York, both Defendants are alleged to be citizens of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $75,000. (ECF No. 1 at
1, 5.) Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial
portion of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Western
District of Pennsylvania. (Id. at 1-2.)
III.
Procedural Background
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on February 28, 2017, asserting one count of negligence
brought by Mr. Lamb against both Defendants and one count for loss of consortium by Mrs. Lamb
against both Defendants. (ECF No. 1).
On May 4, 2017, Defendants filed the present Motion for a More Definite Statement and
their Brief in Support of Motion for a More Definite Statement. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) Plaintiffs filed
their Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion for More Definitive Statement on June 15,
2017. (ECF No. 10.)
Having been fully briefed, Defendants' Motion is ripe for disposition.
IV.
Legal Standard
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). If a
complaint is "so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a
responsive pleading," a party may move for a more definite statement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
However, Rule 12(e) motions are "highly disfavored since the overall scheme of the federal rules
calls for relatively skeletal pleadings and places the burden of unearthing factual details on the
discovery process." A.M. Skier Agency, Inc. v. Creative Risk Services, Inc., No. Civ. A. 3:05-CV-0451,
2006 WL 167762, at *12 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2006) (quoting Hughes v. Smith, No. 03-5035, 2005 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 2783, at *12 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2005); see also Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publications, Inc.,
370 F.2d 795, 798 (3d Cir. 1967) ("Although the motion for a more definite statement continues to
-2-
exist in rule 12(e), it is directed to the rare case where because of the vagueness or ambiguity of
the pleading the answering party will not be able to frame a responsive pleading.").
In deciding Rule 12(e) motions, the prevailing standard employed by Third Circuit courts
is to grant a Rule 12(e) motion "when the pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the opposing
party cannot respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith, without prejudice to [itself]." MK
Strategies, LLC, v. Ann Taylor Stores Corp., 567 F. Supp. 2d 729, 737 (D.N.J. 2008) (citing Clark v.
McDonald's Corp., 213 F.R.D. 198, 232-33 (D.N.J. 2003)). Rule 12(e) should not be used to obtain
information "which presents a proper subject for discovery." Id. (citing Lincoln Labs., Inc. v. Savage
Labs., Inc., 26 F.R.D. 141, 142-43 (D. Del. 1960)). Rule 12(e) motions should be granted based on
"unintelligibility, not lack of detail." Wood & Locker, Inc. v. Doran & Assoc., 708 F. Supp. 684, 691
(W.D. Pa. 1989) (Smith, J.). Whether a Rule 12{e) motion should be granted is "a matter committed
largely to the discretion of the district court." MK Strategies, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 737 (citing Clark,
213 F.R.D. at 232).
V.
Discussion
In applying this standard to the Complaint, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint
is sufficient and denies Defendants' request for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e).
As Defendants admit in their Brief (ECF No. 9 at 12), the Complaint alleges that Mr. Lamb
slipped and fell "on or about March 3, 2015" at 1192 Shawville Highway, Woodland, PA-a
property for which Defendants allegedly had the responsibility to provide snow and ice removal
services. (See ECF No. 1at1-2.) While it may not be a model of particularity or an exemplar of
clarity and specificity, Plaintiffs' Complaint is not so vague or ambiguous that Defendants cannot
-3-
respond in good faith. See id.; Merrigan v. Watsontown Trucking Company, Inc., Civil Action No.
16-5834-BRM-DEA, 2017 WL 1838575, at *2 (D.N.J. May 5, 2017).
The details sought by the Defendants concerning the precise time and location of the
incident are likely appropriate questions for discovery. See A.M. Skier, 2006 WL 167762, at *12;
MK Strategies, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 737. Yet, the lack of this particularized information does not
prevent Defendants from responding to the Complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(b) by admitting, denying, or stating that they lack sufficient knowledge or
information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(5) ("A party that lacks knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state, and the statement has the effect of
a denial."). As discussed supra, Rule 12(e) motions are "highly disfavored" and will be granted
only "when the pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot respond, even
with a simple denial, in good faith, without prejudice to [itself]." A.M. Skier, 2006 WL 167762, at
*12; Hughes, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2783, at *12; MK Strategies, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 737 Schaedler, 370
F .2d at 798. The Court is not persuaded that the Complaint's lack of detail prevents Defendants
from responding in good faith. Thus, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for a More Definite
Statement.
Defendants specifically express concern regarding the waiver of an affirmative defense
"in regards to possible statute of limitations argument." (ECF No. 9 at 4.) Defendants cite Marley
v. Donahue, Civil No. 14-1597, 2014 WL 5152618, at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 14, 2014) to support their
argument that the Court should grant the present Motion to allow Defendants "to determine the
propriety of interposing in his answer a waivable defense" in regard to the statute of limitations.
(ECF No. 9 at 4.) However, the Complaint specifically alleges that Mr. Lamb's slip-and-fall
-4-
incident occurred "on or about March 3, 2015" (ECF No. 1 at~ 9)-an allegation that provides
ample basis for Defendants to determine the propriety of including a statute of limitations
affirmative defense within their answer to the Complaint.
As long as they comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure ll(b), Defendants may assert any appropriate affirmative defense(s) in their Answer
and, if appropriate at a later date, may ask this Court to amend their answer to plead additional
affirmative defenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (regarding amending pleadings); Fed R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)
(regarding modifying scheduling orders if amendments to pleadings are sought after the date set
by the Court's scheduling order). Moreover, if within the course of discovery, Defendants learn
that the undisputed material facts are insufficient to support Plaintiffs' claims as a matter of law,
then Defendants may file a motion for summary judgment on that basis. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
In sum, while Defendants may be able to appropriately challenge the lack of particularity
of Plaintiffs claims at a later time and under a different procedural mechanism, the allegations of
the Complaint are sufficient for Defendants to respond in good faith and, thus, Defendant's
Motion under Rule 12(e) is denied.
VI.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint sufficiently
enables Defendants to fashion an appropriate response.
Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement (ECF No. 8).
A corresponding order follows.
-5-
Accordingly, the Court denies
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE LAMB, JR, and TRACY LAMB,
h/w,
Case No. 3:17-cv-28
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
)
)
v.
)
)
RICHARD SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL,
and SAMUEL RICHARDS,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
ORDER
NOW, this
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?