UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. All Funds on Deposit at Old Mutual of Bermuda, Ltd. Contract Number CX4011696 in Bermuda
Filing
57
OPINION AND ORDER denying 49 Motion for More Definite Statement.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VS.
ALL FUNDS ON DEPOSIT AT OLD
MUTUAL OF BERMUDA LTD.
CONTRACT NUMBER CX4011696 IN
BERMUDA
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-294
§
§
§
§
§
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Pending is a motion for more definite statement filed by Claimants Jorge Juan
Torres (Torres) and Maria Carlota Llaguno de Torres on June 5, 2014 (D.E. 49). Plaintiff
United States of America filed a response to the motion on June 17, 2014 (D.E. 52).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides the following:
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. The motion must be made before filing a responsive
pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the
court orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 10 days of the
notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or
issue any other appropriate order.
Whether to grant a motion for a more definite statement is a matter within the
discretion of the trial court. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v.
Presbyterian Healthcare Resources, 313 F.Supp.2d 648, 654 (N.D. Tex. 2004)(citing
Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 130 (5th Cir. 1959)). When a party
moves for a more definite statement, the court determines whether the complaint is so
vague that the moving party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive
1/3
pleading. J&J Manufacturing, Inc. v. Logan, 24 F.Supp.2d 692, 703 (E.D. Tex.
1998)(citing Sisk v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., 644 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1981).
When a defendant complains of matters that can be clarified and developed during
discovery, rather than matters which impede his ability to form a responsive pleading, an
order directing the plaintiff to file a more definite statement is not warranted. Arista
Records LLC v. Greubel, 453 F.Supp.2d 961, 972 (N.D. Tex. 2006)(citing Mitchell, 269
F.2d at 132 (5th Cir. 1959)).
Under Rule E(2) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and
Asset Forfeiture Actions, a complaint is supposed to state the circumstances from which
the claim arises with such particularity that the defendant or claimant will be able,
without moving for a more definite statement, to commence an investigation of the facts
and to frame a responsive pleading. Rule G(2)(f) states that a complaint should state
sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able
to meet its burden of proof at trial. However, a complaint need not set forth the alleged
illegal activities in specific detail. United States v. $220,562 in United States Funds, No.
5:08-CV-364 (CAR), 2009 WL 789653 (M.D. Georgia, 2009)(citing United States v. Two
Parcels of Real Property Located in Russell County, Ala., 92 F.3d 1123, 1127 (11th Cir.
1996)).
Claimants in this case filed an answer in which they responded to each paragraph
of the complaint and asserted defenses (D.E. 31). Thus, it is clear that the complaint was
not so vague or ambiguous that Claimants could not frame a response. See Price v.
Garcia, No. 3:10-CV-2202-L, 2011 WL 2413127 at *2 (N.D. Tex. 2011)(fact that
2/3
defendant filed an answer is sufficient to defeat motion for more definite statement) and
Murungi v. Texas Guaranteed, 646 F.Supp.2d 804, 811 (E.D. La. 2009)(motion for more
definite statement denied where complaint gave defendants enough information to file
their answer and two motions to dismiss). Accordingly, Claimants’ motion for a more
definite statement is denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Claimants’ Motion for More Definite Statement (D.E.
49) is DENIED.
ORDERED this 24th day of June, 2014.
___________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3/3
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?