Opinion
Civil Action No: 00-2305-JWL.
March 28, 2001.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for More Definite Statement (doc. 37) filed by Third Party Defendant ABB Randall Corporation ("ABB Randall"). ABB Randall moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) for an order requiring Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Optimized Process Furnaces ("Optimized") to provide a more definite statement of the claims it attempts to set forth in its Third-Party Petition (doc. 10). ABB Randall contends that Optimized's allegations of breach of contract, negligence, and indemnity are so vague and ambiguous that it cannot reasonably frame a responsive pleading. Optimized has filed no opposition to the Motion.
I. The Third Party Petition
Optimized's Third Party Petition contains only three brief paragraphs and a prayer for relief. The first paragraph merely deals with service of process on ABB Randall, while the second alleges that ABB Randall was an agent of Plaintiff Amoco Production Company "at the time of the purchasing, designing, manufacturing . . . and repairs of the heater, burner, management system, and system controls in question, and on the date of the explosion in question." Third Party Petition, doc. 10. The third paragraph then alleges:
3. The defendant and third-party plaintiff Optimized Process Furnaces asserts claims for breach of contract, negligence, and indemnity against the third-party defendant ABB Randall Corporation.Id.
The Third Party Petition contains no other information or allegations about the claimed breach of contract, negligence, or indemnity. The contract is not identified and there is no description of the manner in which the contract was breached. Similarly, there is no description of what acts were negligent and no explanation of the indemnity claim.
II. The Standard for Determining a Motion for More Definite Statement
A party may file a motion for more definite statement when the pleading to which the party is required to respond "is so vague or ambiguous" that the party "cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). The decision whether to grant or deny such a motion lies within the sound discretion of the court. Graham v. Prudential Home Mortgage Co., Inc., 186 F.R.D. 651, 653 (D.Kan. 1999) (citations omitted). Such motions are generally not favored by the courts. Classic Communications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 956 F. Supp. 910, 923 (D.Kan. 1997) (citing Resolution Trust Corp. v. Thomas, 837 F. Supp. 354, 356 (D.Kan. 1993)).
Specifically, Rule 12(e) provides in pertinent 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."
Despite the disfavor with which courts view Rule 12(e) motions, such motions are useful when the pleading fails to contain general allegations of each element of the claim as required by Fed.R.Civ. 8. James W. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice 3d, § 12.36[1] at 12-88. See also Stoico Restaurant Group, Inc. v. Jeffrey, No. 98-20602-11, CIV. A. 00-2109-KHV, 2000 WL 1146122, *3 (D.Kan. July 20, 2000) (granting motion for more definite statement where plaintiff failed to adequately plead the element of causation in claim for breach of fiduciary duty and holding that "[p]laintiff must allege facts in her complaint which are sufficient to withstand dismissal on each element of her claim. . . .") Simply put, "a more definite statement will be required when 'defendants can only guess as to what conduct [or] contracts an allegation refers.'" 555 M Manufacturing, Inc. v. Calvin Klein, Inc., 13 F. Supp.2d 719, 724 (N.D.Ill. 1998) (quoting Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Gofen Glossberg, Inc., 882 F. Supp. 713, 726 (N.D.Ill. 1995)).
Rule 8 provides that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Applying these standards, courts have held that to survive a Rule 12(e) motion on a breach of contract claim "the plaintiff must recite the relevant agreement, the basic contents of that agreement, and the pertinent parties." Id. at 723 (citing Moore v. Fidelity Fin. Servs., 869 F. Supp. 557, 560-61 (N.D.Ill. 1994). See also McKenzie v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., No. 99-2517-CM, 2000 WL 1303041, *3 (D.Kan. Aug. 19, 2000) (motion for more definite statement granted where plaintiff failed to describe the alleged contract and its terms and conditions).
The Court has been unable to locate any case law articulating a general rule relating to negligence or indemnity claims, and ABB Randall has not directed the Court to any such decisions. The Court, however, believes that a similar rule should apply to negligence and indemnity claims. The Court holds that to withstand a Rule 12(e) motion for definite statement on a negligence or indemnity claim, a plaintiff should plead general allegations of each element of the claim. The allegations need not be detailed — a short and plain statement of the claims that removes the ambiguity from the complaint (or in this case, third party complaint) is sufficient.
The Court finds Optimized's Third Party Petition to be deficient under these standards. ABB Randall can only guess as to what conduct and what contract(s) the Third Party Petition is alleging. The Court will therefore grant ABB Randall's Motion for More Definite Statement. Within ten days from the date of filing of this Memorandum and Order, Optimized shall file and serve on all parties an amended Third Party Complaint, which, at a minimum (1) pleads the general allegations of each element of its breach of contract claim and which identifies the contract Optimized claims was breached, the basic contents of that agreement, and the pertinent parties; (2) pleads the general allegations of each element of its negligence claim; and (3) pleads the general allegations of each element of its indemnity claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Third-Party Defendant ABB Randall Corporation's Motion for More Definite Statement (doc. 37) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.