Johnson et al v. MNK Holdings LLC et al

Filing 30

ORDER AND OPINION granting 12 MOTION for More Definite Statement. Consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(e), Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this order that will set forth claims consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will cure any defects discussed herein.( Specific Document due by 3/6/2020). Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/21/2020. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Charles Johnson and Randy Watson
Holdings, LLC,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Reginal Barner, The Barner Group, LLC,
)
MNK Holdings, LLC and Michelle Koch, )
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-01129-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION

This matter before the court is review of Defendants MNK Holdings, LLC (“MNK”) and
Michelle Koch (“Koch”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for a More Definite Statement (ECF
No. 12) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(e). For the following reasons, the
court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement (ECF No. 12).
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Charles Johnson and Randy Watson Holdings, LLC filed their First Amended
Complaint in this action on June 21, 2019, alleging breach of fiduciary duties, negligence, and
conversion. (ECF No. 1 at 1-5.) On July 12, 2019, Defendants filed their Motion for a More Definite
Statement (ECF No. 12), arguing that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is so vague that they are unable to answer
it. Defendants point out, inter alia, that the Complaint does not refer to any dates—estimated or
otherwise, periods of time, does not specify the nature of Defendants’ ownership or membership
interests, and that Plaintiffs did not specify which allegations apply to the two moving Defendants
as opposed to the other Defendants. Defendants request an Order requiring Plaintiffs to make their
Complaint more concrete as to provide Defendants with the basic factual background giving rise to
Plaintiffs’ causes of actions.
1

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 12(e), “[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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). “However, a motion for a more definite statement must
be considered in light of the liberal pleading standards of Rule 8(a).” Hubbs v. County of San
Bernardino, CA, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1262 (C.D. Cal. 2008). When a “‘defendant is unclear about
the meaning of a particular allegation in the complaint, the proper course of action is not to move to
dismiss but to move for a more definite statement.’” Potts v. Howard University, 269 F.R.D. 40, 42
(D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Am. Nurses’ Ass’n v. Illinois, 783 F.2d 716, 725 (7th Cir. 1986)).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants appear to request no more than what Rule 8 requires, which is a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This
standard is not a demanding one. Rule 8(a) does not require fact pleading, only that the complaint
“provide fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz
v. Suprema, NA 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). “Whether to grant a Rule 12(e) motion is within the
discretion of the trial court.” However, “[s]uch motion [is] not favored by the courts since pleadings
in federal courts are only required to fairly notify the opposing party of the nature of the claim.”
“[The motion] should not be granted unless the defendant cannot frame a responsive pleading.”
Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1981) (citing Boxall v.
Sequoia Union High School District, 464 F. Supp. 1104, 1114 (N.D. Cal .1979)).
Here, Plaintiffs have filed their Complaint and did not provide a timeframe for any of the
allegations therein. As such, the Complaint is ambiguous and indefinite with respect to when and
where the allegations took place, and without this information Defendants cannot properly and safely
prepare a responsive pleading. For example, as Defendants state, “Defendants cannot adequately
2

prepare responses and evaluate defenses (such as, limitation periods)…” (ECF No. 12 at 3.) While
Plaintiffs are not required to provide every detail, Defendants do raise a legitimate concern that they
are unable to properly respond due to the lack of information regarding timeframes. While a dismissal
is not warranted for this defect, the court shall GRANT Defendants’ Motion for More Definite
Statement (ECF No. 12).
IV. CONCLUSION
For all the above reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite
Statement (ECF No. 12). Consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(e), Plaintiffs
shall file an Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this order that will set forth claims
consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will cure any defects discussed herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
February 21, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

3