Vanderploeg v. Swanson Ventures, Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER entered DENYING 7 MOTION for More Definite Statement. (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROBERT L. VANDERPLOEG
Plaintiff,
VS.
SWANSON VENTURES, INC. and
WHITESTONE REIT
Defendants.

January 04, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-3497
§
§
§
§
§

ORDER DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT
The defendant, Whitestone REIT, moved for a more definite statement under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(e). (Docket Entry No. 7). Co-defendant Swanson Ventures does not oppose
the motion. (Docket Entry No. 11). The plaintiff, Robert Vanderploeg, did not respond. For the
reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
A party is entitled to a more definite statement when all or part of a pleading “is so vague or
ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” FED R. CIV. P. 12(e). “[M]otions
for a more definite statement are generally disfavored.” Russell v. Grace Presbyterian Village, No.
3:05-cv-0030, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44730, 2005 WL 1489579, at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 22, 2005)
(citing 5A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRAC. & PROC. § 1377 (2d ed.
1990)); see also 5C WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRAC. & PROC. § 1376, at 306 (3d ed. 2004) (“The
1948 Amendment of Federal Rule 12(e) makes it clear that the availability of a motion for a more
definite statement is quite restricted.”).
“Whether to grant a motion for a more definite statement is a matter within the discretion of

1

the trial court.” Russell, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44730, 2005 WL 1489579, at *3 (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 under Rule 12(e), the court is granted discretion to determine whether the complaint is so
vague that the moving party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.”
Chapman v. Dallas County Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. 3:05-cv-1809, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86952, 2006
WL 3442057, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2006) (citing Mitchell, 269 F.2d at 130).
When a defendant seeks more information in pleadings that can be clarified and developed
during discovery, an order directing the plaintiff to provide 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). “A motion for more definite statement should not be used as a substitute
for discovery; it should be used as a remedy for unintelligible pleading, not for correcting a lack of
detail.” Residents v. Zone, No. H-16-1458, 2017 U.S. Dist. 70523, at *15 (S.D. Tex. May 9, 2017)
(citing Davenport v. Rodriguez, 147 F. Supp. 2d 630, 639 (S.D. Tex. 2001)). While parties may rely
on Rule 12(e) as a mechanism to enforce the minimum requirements of notice pleading, 5 WRIGHT
& MILLER, FEDERAL PRAC. & PROC. § 1203, at 99 (3d ed. 2004) (“[T]he form and sufficiency of a
statement of a claim for relief under Rule 8(a)(2) may be tested . . . by a motion for a more definite
statement[.]”), “[a] court should only grant a motion for more definite statement when the complaint
is ‘so excessively vague and ambiguous to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant
seriously in attempting to answer it.’” Residents, 2017 U.S. Dist. 70523, at *15 (S.D. Tex. May 9,
2017) (citation omitted).
In its motion, Whitestone seeks additional details from Vanderploeg about the exact date he
was a customer at the defendants’ facility, the specific location of all parking spaces that he alleges

2

were not ADA-compliant, and whether he patronized other units on the same property. These are
matters that can be developed through discovery. Vanderploeg’s complaint is not “unintelligible,”
“excessively vague,” or “ambiguous” as to prevent the defendants from framing a responsive
pleading. The Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is denied.
SIGNED on January 4, 2018, at Houston, Texas.

______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief United States District Judge

3