Opinion
Action by Emerson P. Jennings against Marie Fanti to recover damages for goods and equipment stored with defendant under an alleged bailment contract. Before answering, defendant filed a motion for a more definite complaint. The District Court, Watson, Chief Judge, held that the complaint was sufficiently definite to enable defendant to frame an answer and therefore motion for more definite complaint would be denied and if defendant desired any further particulars in order to prepare for trial he would have to look to other provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provided for obtaining such details.
Defendant's motion for more definite cmoplaint denied.
See also, 96 F.Supp. 264.
William J. Oliver, R. Carl Griffith, Scranton, Pa., for plaintiff.
Ivo V. Giannini, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for defendant.
WATSON, Chief Judge.
This is an action by Emerson P. Jennings, Plaintiff, to recover damages for goods and equipment stored with the Defendant by the Plaintiff under an alleged bailment contract. Before answering, Defendant filed a motion for a more definite complaint under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., and that motion is now before the Court for disposition.
Motions filed under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be granted only where their object is to amplify pleadings which are so insufficient that a responsive pleading cannot be filed thereto. Pearson v. Hershey Creamery Co., D.C.M.D.Pa.1939, 30 F.Supp. 82, 83.
The complaint filed in this action is sufficiently definite to enable the Defendant to frame an answer. If the Defendant desires any further particulars in order to prepare for trial, he must look to other provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provide for the obtaining of such details.
An appropriate order denying Defendant's motion for a more definite complaint will be filed forthwith.