Opinion
02 C 7486
January 28, 2003
OPINION
On December 10, 2002, I granted defendant's motion to strike and for a more definite statement. Now, defendant has filed a second motion to strike and for a more definite statement, alleging that plaintiffs' amendments do not cure the defects raised in the first motion. Defendant argues that several allegations in sub-paragraph 11(a) are still too vague and ambiguous to allow defendant to respond and that the allegation of a defective refrigerator should be stricken because it is not covered under the express warranty. With respect to sub-paragraph 11(b), defendant argues that it is evident that plaintiffs are alleging that the refrigerator and microwave oven are defective, not the electrical system, and because the refrigerator and microwave oven are separately warranted by their respective manufacturers (which is made clear in the warranty), those allegations should also be stricken. Finally, defendant requests that sub-paragraph 11(f), which refers to "[a]ny additional defects as contained on the repair orders of Defendant's authorized dealerships," be stricken because it is vague and ambiguous.
Plaintiffs respond by asserting that they have met the notice pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and therefore, defendant's motion is unnecessary. With respect to sub-paragraph 11(f), plaintiffs argue that this language "specifically refers Defendant to its own authorized dealers' records as to any other defects in the subject vehicle upon which the Complaint is based."
After reviewing the Limited Warranty that applies to plaintiffs' claims, it is clear to me that any component, such as a microwave oven or refrigerator, that is warranted separately by its manufacturer is not covered under the Limited Warranty. Plaintiffs do not contest defendant's assertion that the microwave oven and refrigerator are such components and therefore, I am granting defendants' motion to strike allegations in sub-paragraphs 11(a) and 11(b) regarding defects in the microwave oven and refrigerator. With regard to sub-paragraph 11(f), rather than striking it, I am modifying it so as to eliminate the ambiguity and vagueness that troubles defendant while allowing plaintiffs some flexibility to address things that may arise during discovery. Thus, I am amending sub-paragraph 11(f) to read: "Any additional defects in the subject vehicle that are covered by the Limited Warranty as contained on the repair orders of Defendant's authorized dealerships."
With respect to defendant's request for a more definite statement, plaintiffs point out that they referred defendant to the repair orders attached to their More Definite Statement for all the defective parts repaired or replaced on the subject vehicle. I am satisfied that plaintiffs have pled sufficiently definite facts and have provided defendant with enough information to form a response at this stage in the case. If defendant remains unsure as to a particular allegation, it has the opportunity to obtain additional information through discovery, and if at some point during discovery, defendant feels that it requires information that plaintiffs refuse to provide, defendant can then raise the issue when such time arises.
Defendant's second motion to strike and for a more definite statement is granted in part and denied in part.