Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-CV-00668
01-27-2023
RUTH BATES, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, Defendant.
MARIANI, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss and a motion for a more definite statement filed by Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) on May 11, 2022. (Doc. 3). On March 1, 2022, pro se plaintiff Ruth Bates (“Bates”) initiated this action by filing a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1-1). In the complaint, Bates alleges that on June 9, 2021, Wal-Mart committed wanton and reckless acts and seeks $15 billion in punitive damages. (Doc. 1-1, at 1-2). Wal-Mart removed this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on May 6, 2022. (Doc. 1).
For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss and motion for a more definite statement be GRANTED. (Doc. 3).
I. Background and Procedural History
On March 1, 2022, Bates initiated the present action by filing a complaint in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. 1-1). Wal-Mart removed this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on May 6, 2022. (Doc. 1). On May 11, 2022, Wal-Mart filed a motion to dismiss and a brief in support the following day. (Doc. 3; Doc. 4). On July 22, 2022, the Court directed Bates to file a brief in opposition to Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss on or before Friday, August 5, 2022. (Doc. 5). To date, Bates has not filed a brief in opposition. Accordingly, per the terms of the Order, the Court considers the motion to dismiss unopposed and ripe for disposition. (Doc. 3; Doc. 4).
II. Standards of Law
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To assess the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must first take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim, then identify mere conclusions which are not entitled to the assumption of truth, and finally determine whether the complaint's factual allegations, taken as true, could plausibly satisfy the elements of the legal claim. Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, as well as “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).
After recognizing the required elements which make up the legal claim, a court should “begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The plaintiff must provide some factual ground for relief, which “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” BellAtlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Thus, courts “need not credit a complaint's ‘bald assertions' or ‘legal conclusions' ....” Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor need the court assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that the plaintiff has not alleged. Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).
A court must then determine whether the well-pleaded factual allegations give rise to a plausible claim for relief. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 219-20 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 262 n.27 (3d Cir. 2010). The court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint, and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d at 1261. This “presumption of truth attaches only to those allegations for which there is sufficient factual matter to render them plausible on their face.” Schuchardt v. President of the United States, 839 F.3d 336, 347 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The plausibility determination is context-specific and does not impose a heightened pleading requirement. Schuchardt, 839 F.3d at 347.
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a “short and plain” statement of a cause of action. There is no requirement that the pleading be specific or probable. Schuchardt, 839 F.3d at 347 (citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d at 224, 233-234 (3d Cir. 2008). Rule 8(a) requires a “showing that ‘the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); see alsoPhillips, 515 F.3d at 233 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545).
With the aforementioned standards in mind, a document filed pro se is “to be liberally construed.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A pro se complaint, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Further, the Third Circuit has instructed that if a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Graysonv. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
Bates's complaint fails to state a claim under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A complaint 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). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1); Scibelli v. Lebanon Cnty., 219 Fed.Appx. 221, 222 (3d Cir. 2007). Dismissal under Rule 8 is proper when a complaint “le[aves] the defendants having to guess what of the many things discussed constituted [a cause of action].” Binsack v. LackawannaCounty Prison, 438 Fed.Appx. 158, 160 (3d Cir. 2011). While the undersigned must construe the amended complaint liberally due to Bates's status as a pro se litigant, the complaint fails to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) often serves as a corollary to pleading standards under Rule 8(a). Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction[;] ... the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and ... a demand for the relief sought, which may include ... different types of relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Where the complaint is lacking in this regard:
A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired.Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
The Court notes that “[a] motion for a more definite statement is not a substitute for the discovery process[,]” and that such motions are not favored. Wheeler v. United States PostalService, 120 F.R.D. 487, 488 (M.D. Pa. 1987). Such motions are typically only granted where pleadings are “unintelligible or if it is virtually impossible for the opposing party to craft a responsive pleading.” Maya v. Chertok, 2015 WL 5254377, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2015) (quoting Morris v. Kesserling, 2010 WL 4362630, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2010) (quotations omitted)); see Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publ'n, 370 F.2d 795, 798 (3d Cir. 1966) (such motions are “directed to the rare case where because of the vagueness or ambiguity of the pleading the answering party will not be able to frame a responsive pleading”). The opposing party must be unable to respond “even with a simple denial[ ] in good faith or without prejudice to himself.” Brueggman v. Fayette County, 1995 WL 606796, *4 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 1995); see Kimberton Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Primary PhysicianCare,Inc., 2011 WL 6046923, *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2011) (“a motion for a more definitive statement is generally ... used to provide a remedy for an unintelligible pleading rather than as a correction for a lack of detail”).
The Third Circuit has, however, “highlighted the usefulness of a motion for a more definite statement when a complaint does not disclose the facts underlying a plaintiff's claim for relief such that the defendant cannot reasonably be expected to frame a proper, fact specific defense.” Miller v. Alt. Freight Sys., 2013 WL 1308235, *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2013) (citing Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 301 (3d Cir. 2006)). In this circumstance, “the Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is perhaps the best procedural tool available to obtain the factual basis underlying a plaintiff's claim for relief.” Thomas, 463 F.3d at 301. At base, these motions are largely committed to the discretion of the trial court. Maya, 2015 WL 5254377, at *2.
III. Discussion
In the motion to dismiss, Wal-Mart avers that the complaint fails to state any factual allegations necessary to give rise to a viable cause of action and lacks any detail that would allow Wal-Mart to reasonably respond to the pleading. (Doc. 4, at 1-6). In the alternative, Wal-Mart moves for a more definitive statement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). (Doc. 4, at 6). As the Court finds that the complaint fails to state a cause of action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted, and the motion for more definitive statement be denied as moot.
Bates's complaint fails to allege any facts that support a claim against Walmart, let alone identify wanton and reckless conduct. (Doc. 4, at 5). Bates only alleges that on June 9, 2021, Wal-Mart committed wanton and reckless acts and seeks $15 billion in punitive damages. (Doc. 1-1, at 1-2). On the civil cover sheet, Bates identifies the nature of the case as medical professional liability. (Doc. 1-1, at 1). Bates does not include any recitation of the underlying facts or the basis of liability. (Doc. 1-1, at 1-2). Accordingly, it is recommended that Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss be GRANTED.
The Third Circuit has instructed that if a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the district court must permit a curative amendment unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Grayson, 293 F.3d at 108. As the amended complaint in its current form does not clearly set forth any claims against Defendant, dismissal is warranted. However, so as to preserve Bates's rights as a pro se litigant, the Court recommends that Bates be granted leave to file a final, unified, legible amended complaint setting forth factual allegations and legal claims in a manner that can be reviewed by the Court and, if necessary, answered by Defendants. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Grayson, 293 F.3d at 108.
Bates is advised that an amended complaint must be a pleading that stands by itself without reference to the original complaint. Young v. Keohane, 809 F.Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992) (emphasis added). The amended complaint must also establish the existence of specific actions taken by Defendant. Bates is further cautioned that she must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and establish at least a modicum of factual specificity regarding the claims she intends to assert and the factual grounds upon which they rest. The amended complaint should also be limited to those claims that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences as averred in the original complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with the aforementioned requirements may result in the dismissal of this action in its entirety.
IV. Recommendation
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss and motion for a more definite statement (Doc. 3) be GRANTED and Bates be granted leave to file an amended complaint.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated January 27, 2023. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only at his or her discretion or where required by law and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.