Jimenez v. Regius Verus Foods, LLC et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING 9 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (rf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
ALEJANDRO JIMINEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REGIUS VERUS FOODS, LLC, and
JESUS NOE CORTES,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CV. NO. 5:14-CV-1021-DAE

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Before the Court is a Motion for More Definite Statement filed by
Defendants Regius Verus Food, LLC and Jesus Noe Cortes (collectively,
“Defendants”) (Dkt. # 9). After careful consideration of the memoranda in support
of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for
More Definite Statement.
BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against
Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201
et. seq. (“FLSA”) (Dkt. # 1). Plaintiff alleges that he was an employee of
Defendant Regius Verus Foods as a food service worker and that Defendants failed
to pay him the minimum wage and overtime wages as required under FLSA. (Id.
1

at 4.) The Complaint seeks a declaration that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights
under FLSA, payment of overtime wages and unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. (Id. at 5.) Defendants filed their Motion for
More Definite Statement and Subject thereto, Original Answer on December 9,
2014. (Dkt. 9.) Plaintiff filed a Response on December 12, 2014. (Dkt. # 11.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a
pleading stating a claim for relief contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “If a pleading
fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a
defendant can move for a more definite statement under [Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure] 12(e) before responding.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506,
514 (2002). Rule 12(e) provides that “[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).
The pleading standard set out in Rule 8(a) is a liberal one; it does not
require a plaintiff to plead with specificity the facts giving rise to his or her claim.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (stating that “the pleading
standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations” (internal
2

quotation marks omitted)); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (noting that
under Rule 8(a)’s notice pleading standard, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary”). As
a result, Rule 12(e) motions are generally disfavored and are used “to provide a
remedy only for an unintelligible pleading rather than a correction for lack of
detail.” Davenport v. Rodriguez, 147 F. Supp. 2d 630, 639 (S.D. Tex. 2001); see
also Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir. 1959) (“In
view of the great liberality of [Rule 8], permitting notice pleading, it is clearly the
policy of the Rules that Rule 12(e) should not be used to frustrate this policy by
lightly requiring a plaintiff to amend his complaint which under Rule 8 is sufficient
to withstand a motion to dismiss.”). Thus, a motion for a more definite statement
will be granted only when a pleading is so “barren of specifics,” United States v.
Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 690
n.15 (1973), that the opposing party is unable to respond.
DISCUSSION
Defendants’ Motion argues that Plaintiff’s allegations are “ambiguous
and vague” and “have wholly prevented Defendant[s] from adequately
responding.” (Dkt.# 9 at 1.) Defendants ask that Plaintiff state his positions of
employment, the dates of his employment, his rate of pay, the dates on which he
was allegedly not paid in accordance with FLSA requirements, and how much he
alleges he is owed. (Id.)
3

Plaintiff’s Complaint is not so vague and ambiguous that Defendants
cannot reasonably prepare a response. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was
employed by Defendants as a food service worker in Bexar County from August
2011 through April 2012 and from October 2012 through September 2014. (Dkt.
# 1 ¶¶ 4.2–4.3.) The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff was never paid
overtime wages for working more than forty hours per week, (id. ¶ 4.4), and was
not paid the minimum wage while employed between August 2011 and April 2012.
(Id. ¶ 4.5.) The Complaint further cites the specific provisions of FLSA on which
Plaintiff’s claim is based. (Id. ¶¶ 5.3–5.5.) These allegations are sufficient to
satisfy the liberal standard for pleading under Rule 8(a), and are certainly not so
unintelligible or lacking in specificity that Defendants are unable to respond.
Indeed, Defendants have responded by answering with specific denials of the
allegations set forth in the Complaint. (Dkt. # 9 at 2–3.) The additional factual
detail that Defendants seek is properly sought not by requiring Plaintiff to amend
his complaint, but instead through discovery.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for
More Definite Statement.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: San Antonio, Texas, January 8, 2015.

_____________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States Distict Judge

5