Robinson v. Provo City et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 12 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 10/22/2015. (blh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
HAROLD ROBINSON,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT
Plaintiff,
v.
PROVO CITY, a municipal corporation,
RUSSELL BILLINGS, DEVON JENSEN,
LUIFAU UIPI, and DON WEIDINGER,
Case No. 2:15-CV-311 TS
Defendants.
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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.” Defendants request the
Court order Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement. Defendants argue that the Complaint
Plaintiff served on them is missing a number of paragraphs and, without those paragraphs,
Defendants are unable to reasonably prepare a response.
Having reviewed the docket, the Court will deny Defendants’ request. While Plaintiff
may have failed to serve a complete copy of his Complaint on Defendants, the Complaint on file
with the Court contains the missing paragraphs that Defendants seek. Thus, there is no need for
a more definite statement. Defendants can consult the Complaint on the docket to prepare their
response.
1
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement (Docket No. 12) is
DENIED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), Defendants’ responsive
pleading must be served within fourteen (14) days of this Order.
DATED this 22nd day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
Ted Stewart
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?