From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Awada v. Royal Jordanian Airlines

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Nov 7, 2005
Civil No. 05-73477 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2005)

Opinion

Civil No. 05-73477.

November 7, 2005


OPINION AND ORDER


In lieu of an answer, Defendant Wayne County Airport Authority has filed a motion for a more definite statement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). For the reasons below, I GRANT the motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are as averred in the Complaint: Plaintiff Awada took a Royal Jordanian Airlines flight that arrived at Wayne County Airport in August of 2004. He had made a reservation with the airline for an aide with a wheelchair to meet him, but no one met him with one. Eventually, a wheelchair was provided, but his son had to push it. His son pushed him to an area where the only way to get to a lower level was via an escalator. Plaintiff tried to stand on the escalator, but fell and pulled the wheelchair with him, and suffered injuries. Plaintiff brings one count against Wayne County Airport Authority: a count of negligence.

ANALYSIS

A motion for a more definite statement may be filed when "a pleading [. . .] is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Rule 12 does not "require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is a `short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (footnote omitted). Thus, the comments to the Rule note that it is appropriate to grant the motion "where the movant cannot reasonably be required to frame a [. . .] responsive pleading." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) advisory committee's note (1946). One of the ways that circumstance occurs is when a more definite statement can tighten a complaint and clarify which of several possible claims is actually being asserted. See Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (11th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion states that "the sole nature of Plaintiff's action against the Wayne County Airport Authority is of its failure to warn of the dangers of trying to travel on to an escalator from a wheelchair by an elderly, handicapped individual." (Resp. at 3.) The Complaint might be read as asserting at least six possible bases for the negligence count, only one of which was a failure to warn. (Compl. ¶ 40.) In addition, the failure to warn claim in the Complaint was not stated nearly as clearly as Plaintiff has managed to do in his response.

Plaintiff's response makes it clear that a more definite statement would allow Defendant Wayne County Airport Authority and this Court to deal with this case much more efficiently. Therefore, I GRANT the motion for a more definite statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Awada v. Royal Jordanian Airlines

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Nov 7, 2005
Civil No. 05-73477 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2005)
Case details for

Awada v. Royal Jordanian Airlines

Case Details

Full title:MOHAMED AWADA, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES and WAYNE COUNTY…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Nov 7, 2005

Citations

Civil No. 05-73477 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2005)