Opinion
2:12-cv-00738-GMN-NJK
01-30-2013
GABRIEL L. GRASSO, ESQ., et al., Plaintiffs, v. YALE L. GALANTER, ESQ., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This matter came before the Court on Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e). The Court has considered the Defendant's Motion (#5), the Plaintiff's Response (#7), and the Defendant's Reply (#9).
BACKGROUND
On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the present action in the Eight Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. Petition for Removal (#1). The Complaint alleges seven separate claims for relief against the Defendant, all arising out of an alleged contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant. Id. The alleged contract concerned payment of legal fees to the Plaintiff by the Defendant for the local representation of Orenthal J. Simpson in a criminal case. Id.
On May 2, 2012, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Id. Presently before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement (#5). The Defendant asserts that the Complaint is too vague, ambiguous, and speculative for him to respond adequately. Id.
DISCUSSION
A motion for more definite statement is disfavored. See U.S. E .E.O.C. v. Alia Corp., 842 F.Supp.2d 1243, 1250 E.D. Cal.2012); C .B. v. Sonora School Dist., 691 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1191 E.D. Cal.2010). "The purpose of Rule 12(e) is to provide relief from a pleading that is unintelligible, not one that is merely lacking detail." E .E.O.C. v. Alia Corp., 842 F.Supp.2d at 1250. "Where the [pleading] is specific enough to [apprise] the responding party of the substance of the claim [or defense] being asserted or where the detail sought is otherwise obtainable through discovery, a motion for a more definite statement should be denied." Id.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint (Petition for Removal (#1)) and does not find it to be unintelligible. Instead, the Court finds that it comports with the requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which provides that a pleading must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Accordingly, the Defendant must provide a responsive pleading.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement (#5) is DENIED.
____________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge