Jones v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Full title: LITTIECE JONES, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant.

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

Date published: Dec 11, 2024

2:24-cv-11224 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 11, 2024)

Opinion

2:24-cv-11224

12-11-2024

LITTIECE JONES, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant.

Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (ECF NO. 21)

Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge

On May 8, 2024, Plaintiff Littiece Jones, proceeding pro se, sued her employer, Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc., utilizing a court form entitled “MIED ProSe7 (Rev 5/16) Complaint for Employment Discrimination.” ECF No. 1 at PageID.1. Plaintiff alleged, by checking boxes on the form, that Defendant violated several federal laws when it failed to promote her, failed to accommodate her disability, provided unequal terms and conditions of employment, retaliated against her, and failed to accommodate her religion. Id. at PageID.5. To add further detail to her claim, Plaintiff attached to the form 13 pages of written narrative. See id. at PageID.10-23.

Noting the difficulty in responding to Plaintiff's Complaint due to its length and its failure to set forth the allegations in numbered paragraphs, Defendant filed an answer, but also filed a motion for more definite statement on August 30, 2024. ECF No. 21. During a scheduling conference on October 3, 2024, the Parties agreed that Plaintiff would amend her complaint to provide a more definite statement on or before October 21, 2024.¹ See ECF No. 25.

1 Although this date is beyond the timeframe for filing an amended complaint as a matter of course, this Court determined that “justice so require[d]” leave for Plaintiff to amend her complaint to provide a more definite statement, and all parties consented to the October 21 deadline. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(2).

On October 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint² which set forth her allegations in numbered paragraphs. ECF No. 26. Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on November 4, 2024. ECF No. 27.

2 This document was docketed as a “Reply to Response,” but is clearly titled “Amended Complaint with Jury Trial Demand,” and so will be considered as such. ECF No. 26.

Thus, because Plaintiff has filed her Amended Complaint, ECF No. 26, and Defendant has already answered it, ECF No. 27, Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement regarding Plaintiff's original complaint, ECF No. 21, is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.