Summary
affirming a district court's dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8 because "[w]e cannot discover what claim the complaint is intended to make"
Summary of this case from Brown v. CaesarOpinion
No. 13931.
Argued November 6, 1957.
Decided November 14, 1957. Petition for Rehearing In Banc Denied December 10, 1957.
Miss Jessie P. Grandy, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Mr. David C. Bastian, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Arthur P. Drury, John M. Lynham and John E. Powell, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
After our remand in Nicol v. Baird, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 256, 234 F.2d 691, the District Court twice allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, as they had the previous complaints, for failure to comply with Rule 8(a), F.R.Civ.P., [28 U.S.C.A.] which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief", and Rule 8(e)(1), which requires that "Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." The District Court dismissed the complaint, with prejudice, and the plaintiffs appeal. We find no error. We cannot discover what claim the complaint is intended to make.
Affirmed.