Opinion
No. 01 C 50341
April 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER
Plaintiffs, Carmen Pinnavaria and Maureen Garcia, pro se, filed a fifty-three page, single-spaced complaint against defendants, C-Phone Corporation, Daniel P. Flohr, Paul H. Albritton, Stuart E. Ross, Kurt O. Svendsen, Tina L. Jacobs, Seymour L. Gartenberg, Dr. Donald S. McCoy, E. Henry Mize, Warshaw, Bustein, Cohen, Schlesinger Kull, Arthur Katz, and Michael D. Schwamm. Defendants have moved to dismiss, on various grounds, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9 (b). The court, sua sponte, strikes plaintiffs' complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10(b) and Local Rule LR5.2(a).
Rule 8(a)(1) requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the' court's jurisdiction depends . . . ." Plaintiffs' complaint sets forth no such statement of jurisdiction. Rule 8(a)(2) requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See Vicom, Inc., v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775-76 (7th Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs' complaint is neither short nor plain. Rule 8(e)(1) requires that each averment of a pleading be "simple, concise, and direct." Plaintiffs' complaint consists mostly of apparently verbatim restatements of various communications between one of the plaintiffs and the various defendants, communications with the Securities and Exchange Commission, press releases and press reports and communications by Seedling Technologies Corp., apparently a shareholder of C-Phone Corporation concerning its apparent attempt to acquire a majority stake in C-Phone. Rule 10(b) requires that all averments "shall be in numbered paragraphs . . . ." While some portions of plaintiffs' complaint contain numbered statements, much of it does not. Compliance with the rules allows a defendant to answer the complaint and prevents problems conducting pretrial discovery, formulating pretrial orders and applying res judicata. See Vicom at 776. It is difficult to imagine how defendants would be able to file an answer to this complaint. While pro se litigants are accorded a liberal construction of their pleadings, they still are required to comply with the court's rules. See Greer v. Board of Education, 267 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Rules 8 and 10(b).
Additionally, plaintiffs have not complied with local rule LR5.2(a) which requires typed documents filed with the court to have a line spacing of at least 1 1/2 lines and the body of the text to be in 12 point type. This rule provides an additional basis for striking plaintiffs' complaint.
Defendants have waded through the complaint and raised several bases for dismissing under Rule 12(b)(6). Considering plaintiffs' pro se status and the fact plaintiffs have had no prior opportunity to amend, the court is reluctant to impose the draconian measure of dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim at this time. Plaintiffs must be mindful, however, that they may be subject to the sanctions provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 if they assert a claim in a subsequent pleading which proves to be in violation of Rule 11(b).
For the foregoing reason, plaintiffs' complaint is stricken. Plaintiffs are granted forty-five days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs are to use this substantial amount of time to carefully evaluate their claims, including relevant statutes of limitation, and to carefully review the local rules of this court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rules 8, 9(b), 10(b) and 11, and cases decided by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concerning those rules. The plaintiffs should consider seeking legal counsel to represent them prior to repleading.
If plaintiffs elect to file an amended complaint, they need to make a short and plain statement as to the court's jurisdiction over their claims, and organize their pleading in numbered paragraphs so that each averment is simple concise and direct. To the extent they make averments of fraud, they need to make simple, concise and direct statements of the who, what, when, and where of the alleged fraud or misrepresentation in accordance with Rule 9(b). See Lachmund v. ADM Investor Services, Inc., 191 F.3d 777, 782 (7th Cir. 1999).