Lewis v. Bay Industries Inc et al

Filing 9

DECISION AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 3/5/2013 denying Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and/or Strike 4 and 8 . (cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TIMOTHY J. LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-C-1204

BAY INDUSTRIES, INC.,
AWS/gb/ CORP., and
SCHMIDT ACQUISITION 114 INC.,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

On November 11, 2012, Plaintiff Timothy J. Lewis filed a complaint alleging unlawful
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and wrongful discharge contrary
to Wisconsin law. In lieu of filing an answer, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike
Lewis’ complaint and/or for a more definite statement. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(1)(B), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service
of either “a responsive pleading or . . . a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . whichever is earlier.” Lewis
filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2013, within the time allotted for amending in accord
with Rule 15. Subsequently, Defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss renewing their original
motion and incorporating by reference its brief in support of that motion. (ECF No. 8.) Though no
response to defendant’s motion has yet been filed, it is clear from a recent decision by the Seventh
Circuit that the motion should be denied. In the interest of avoiding unnecessary delay and expense,
the court will deny the motion without waiting for it to be fully briefed and direct the Clerk to set
the case on the calendar for scheduling.

Defendants’ primary argument is that Lewis’ original and amended complaints are
insufficient in that the complaints do not comply with Rule 8(a)(2)’s requirement that a pleading
“contain a short and plain statement of the claim.” The original complaint spanned 29 pages with
95 numbered paragraphs. Defendants asserted that much of the original complaint contained
extraneous information and did not make clear which of the multiple defendants was responsible
for the alleged wrongdoing. (Defs. Br. in Supp. 2 (stating that Defendants bring the motion
“[b]ecause of Plaintiff’s rambling, voluminous, indiscriminate allegations against all three
Defendants”). Lewis’ amended complaint now spans 31 pages containing 108 paragraphs.
A recent decision by the Seventh Circuit explains that the word “short” in Rule 8(a)(2) “is
a relative term.” Kadamovas v. Stevens, __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 452482, at *1 (7th Cir. Feb. 7, 2013).
Length as opposed to unintelligibility needs to be distinguished. Id. The Kadamovas court points
out that in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554
(2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), “a plaintiff must now show plausibility” and
consequently “complaints are likely to be longer—and legitimately so—than before Twombly and
Iqbal.” Id. at *2. Therefore, Rule 8's brevity requirement “must be calibrated to the number of
claims and also to their character, since some require more explanation than others to establish their
plausibility—and the Supreme Court requires that a complaint establish the plausibility of its
claims.” Id. at *1.
That Lewis’ amended complaint spans 31 pages alone is not sufficient to declare that it fails
to comply with Rule 8(a)(2). To be sure, the amended complaint is, in this court’s view, longer than
necessary. It provides detailed factual allegations evidently intended to forestall any motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 8(a)(2) is not a license for the court or opposing parties to act
2

as editors, however. It states the minimum requirements for a complaint, and should not be read
as inviting motion practice over matters of style and taste. Lewis’ amended complaint cannot be
described as being of such inordinate length that it is rendered unintelligible as a result. See, e.g.,
United States ex ere. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 238 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[L]ength
may make a complaint unintelligible, by scattering and concealing in a morass of irrelevancies the
few allegations that matter.”). Unlike the complaint in Garst where the complaint spanned 155
pages and contained 400 paragraphs, Lewis’ amended complaint contains 31 pages with 108
paragraphs and is quite intelligible. Though this may seem excessive since Lewis only has two
claims, his claims involve allegations of retaliation and wrongful discharge which requires specific
mental states that are generally determined from surrounding circumstances that are factually
intense. In light of Lewis’ burden to plead sufficient factual content so his complaint states a claim
to relief that is “plausible on its face,” the Court does not conclude that he runs afoul of Rule 8's
brevity requirement. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Kadamovas, 2013 WL 452482, at *3 (holding that
prisoner’s complaint spanning 99 pages did not violate Rule 8's requirement that a pleading contain
a short and plain statement of the claim).
Defendants also argue that Lewis’ amended complaint is deficient because he failed to
identify which of the named defendants his allegations apply to. Lewis names three corporate
defendants in his amended complaint: AWS/gb Corporation, Schmidt Acquisition 114, Inc., and
Bay Industries, Inc., all of whom are treated collectively as his employer. Lewis alleges that he was
an employee and executive for all three defendants. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 21-23.) He also alleges
that Daniel Schmidt, the president of all three defendants, made the decision to terminate his
employment. (Id. at ¶¶ 71-72.) Lewis alleges that Schmidt’s decision to terminate his employment
3

with each of the defendants violated his rights under federal and state law. Contrary to Defendants’
assertion, Lewis’ amended complaint outlines the principal persons involved in the factual
allegations, their relationship to the respective defendants (see, e.g., id. at ¶ 11), and the grounds to
state his claim against each of the defendants.
Although Lewis’ amended complaint is perhaps lengthier than one would like, it is not so
lengthy as to become unintelligible and there are sufficient allegations to specify which defendant
Lewis’ claims apply to (here, all three). Defendants also request, if their motion to dismiss is
denied, that the Court strike those portions of Lewis’ complaint that are deemed superfluous. The
Court does not find that there is a sufficient need to strike Lewis’ allegations in his amended
complaint. Therefore, the Court declines Defendants’ request to be an editor. BJC Health Sys. v.
Columbia Cas. Co., 478 F.3d 908, 917 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Judges enjoy liberal discretion to strike
pleadings under Rule 12(f).”). Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to dismiss and/or strike (ECF
Nos. 4 & 8) are denied. The Clerk is directed to set this matter on the court’s calendar for
scheduling.
SO ORDERED this

5th

day of March, 2013.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

4