Opinion
2:21-cv-00173-JAM-KJN
08-30-2021
JAH INTERESTS V, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NUTRITION 53, INC., et al.; Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
JOHN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 25, 2021, Defendant Nutrition 53 (“N53”) filed a motion for a definite statement under Rule 12(e). See Mot., ECF No. 20. Plaintiff filed an opposition. See ECF No. 28. Defendant did not file a reply.
I. OPINION
Rule 12(e) permits a party to “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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). “A Rule 12(e) motion is proper only if the complaint is so indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the claim being asserted in order to frame a response.” Medrano v. Kern County Sheriff's Officer, 921 F.Supp.2d 1009, 1013 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Such motions are “disfavored.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist., 691 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1191 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“motions for more definite statement are viewed with disfavor, and are rarely granted”)(emphasis added). Motions for a definite statement are “ordinarily restricted to situations where a pleading suffers from unintelligibility rather than want of detail.” Medrano, 921 F.Supp.2d at 1013. Further, courts may deny such motions “if the detail sought by a motion for more definite statement is obtainable through discovery.” C.B., 691 F.Supp.2d at 1191. After reviewing the parties' briefs and applicable law indicating that such motions are disfavored and rarely granted, the Court denies Defendant's motion. Defendant did not show that the amended complaint is so indefinite that it cannot ascertain the nature of claims being asserted against it. See Mot. Nor did Defendant explain why it cannot get the info it claims it needs through discovery. Id.
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled for August 31, 2021.
II. ORDER For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Defendant's motion for a more definite statement. IT IS SO ORDERED.