Bowman v. Spring Fund Ltd et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 5 Motion for More Definite Statement, filed by Dallas International Realty Advisor LLC, John S Chong, Spring Fund Ltd. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 12/5/2014) (Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
DANA BOWMAN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
SPRING FUND, LTD, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-3702-D
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Defendants’ November 11, 2014 motion for a more definite statement is denied.*
“A motion for a more definite statement under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(e) is available where the
pleading ‘is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.’” Conceal
City, L.L.C. v. Looper Law Enforcement, LLC, 917 F.Supp.2d 611, 621 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (Fitzwater,
C.J.) (quoting Rule 12(e)). “‘Motions for a more definite statement are generally disfavored.’”
Johnson v. BAE Sys. Land & Armaments, L.P., 2012 WL 5903780, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2012)
(Fitzwater, C.J.) (quoting Russell v. Grace Presbyterian Vill., 2005 WL 1489579, at *3 (N.D. Tex.
June 22, 2005) (Solis, J.)). “‘When a defendant is complaining of matters that can be clarified and
developed during discovery, not matters that impede [its] ability to form a responsive pleading, an
order directing the plaintiff to provide a more definite statement is not warranted.’” Id. (quoting
Brown v. Whitcraft, 2008 WL 2066929, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2008) (Fitzwater, C.J.)).
*
Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written opinion”
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[] issued by the
court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.” It has been written,
however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case, and not for publication in
an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.
The court concludes that plaintiff’s complaint is not so vague or ambiguous that defendants
cannot reasonably prepare a responsive pleading. In fact, some of defendants’ arguments are more
akin to Rule 12(b)(6)-type contentions than to Rule 12(e) complaints. See Mot. for More Definite
Statement at 6, n.8 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)).
SO ORDERED.
December 5, 2014.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
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?