Opinion
EP-06-CA-0180-FM.
November 7, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
On this day, the Court considered Plaintiff Charlene Knickerbocker's ("Knickerbocker") "Plaintiff's Motion for More Definite Statement" [Rec. No. 13] and Defendant Francis J. Harvey's ("the Secretary") "Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for More Definite Statement" [Rec. No. 18] filed in the above-captioned cause. Therein, Knickerbocker asks the Court to enter an order requiring the Secretary to amend his Motion to Dismiss to present a more definite statement of his arguments. For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that it should, and hereby does, DENY "Plaintiff's Motion for More Definite Statement" [Rec. No. 13].
Knickerbocker filed the instant suit on May 19, 2006, alleging discrimination and retaliation. In lieu of an answer, the Secretary filed his "Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment" [Rec. No. 10] on September 13, 2006. Knickerbocker's "Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment" [Rec. No. 16] followed on October 13, 2006. In "Plaintiff's Motion for More Definite Statement" [Rec. No. 13], also filed on October 13, 2006, Plaintiff moves the Court to "require the Defendant to amend his motion with a more definite statement of the argument." [Rec. No. 13, pg. 1]. Plaintiff's Motion for a More Definite Statement, purportedly filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), seeks to clarify certain portions of the Secretary's pending Motion to Dismiss.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides in part: "If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e) (emphasis added). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) defines a "pleading" under the Federal Rules as only a complaint, answer, reply to counterclaim, answer to cross-claim, third-party complaint, third-party answer, or reply to an answer if ordered by the court. FED. R. CIV. P. 7(a). The Fifth Circuit has held that a "pleading" is defined by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a). See Zaidi v. Ehrlich, 732 F.2d 1218, 1219-20 (5th Cir. 1984). Further, the Court stated the definition of "pleading" under Rule 7(a) does not include "a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment." Id.
Here, Knickerbocker has failed to cite a single legal authority supporting the proposition that a plaintiff may move for a more definite statement of a motion to dismiss. Because the Secretary's Motion to Dismiss is not a pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore not subject to a motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), Knickerbocker's Motion for a More Definite Statement must be DENIED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that "Plaintiff's Motion for More Definite Statement" [Rec. No. 13] is DENIED.
According to the Secretary's Response, "A diligent search by the undersigned failed to yield a single published case within the Fifth Circuit where a district court granted a plaintiff's motion for a more definite statement under FED. R. CIV. PRO. 12(e), other than in the context of FED. R. CIV. PRO. 9(b), which is not applicable in this case." [Rec. No. 18, pg. 2].