Summary
upholding the dismissal, without prejudice, of a complaint that failed to comply with Rule 8
Summary of this case from Poblete v. Indymac BankOpinion
No. 8972.
Argued January 14, 1946.
Decided February 18, 1946.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
Action by Mary Caperton Renshaw, in her own right, and also as ancillary guardian of estates of Mary C. Renshaw, and Lucy D. Renshaw, minors, against Lewis Hopkins Renshaw, for money alleged to be due under written agreements, for expenses incurred in supplying food, shelter and clothing for children of plaintiff and defendant, for expenses incident to a surgical operation performed on one of the children, for expenses incurred at school attended by children, and to require defendant to pay for support, maintenance and education of children and to defray expenses for further surgical operation for one child and for delivery to plaintiff as ancillary guardian of estates of minors of certain personal property and moneys allegedly belonging to the minors. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Mr. Levi H. David, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Raymond Neudecker, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
Appellant brought an action in the District Court against her divorced husband. The complaint was in six counts. The first was for money alleged to be due her under certain written agreements with the defendant. Count II was for expenses incurred in supplying food, shelter and clothing for the children of plaintiff and defendant. Count III was for expenses incident to a surgical operation performed upon one of the children. Count IV was for expenses incurred at the school attended by the children. Count V, in which plaintiff sued as ancillary guardian of the estates of the children, was to require defendant to pay for the support, maintenance and education of the children and to defray the expenses for further surgical operations for the one child. Count VI was for the delivery to plaintiff, as ancillary guardian of the estates of the minors, of certain personal property and monies alleged to belong to them.
Defendant moved to strike parts of the complaint on the ground that they were redundant, immaterial and scandalous, to dismiss Counts II, III and IV on the ground that they did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and to strike the entire complaint because its averments were not simple, concise and direct as required by Rule 8(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The District Court granted the motion, without prejudice.
The motion was entitled "Defendant's Motions to Strike; Motions to Dismiss; and for better Bill of Particulars." In the text, the motions were "to strike" in part and "to dismiss" in part. The judgment of the court was to grant the "motion to dismiss" the complaint. We think the difference in words was immaterial.
The complaint itself was fourteen printed pages, of the size and style customary in printing joint appendices to briefs in this court, and the seven exhibits attached thereto were another seventeen printed pages. The dismissal, without prejudice, of a complaint upon the basis of Rule 8(e)(1) is largely within the discretion of the trial court. We will not disturb its action unless we find clear error. We find none here.
Appellant argues that the court below granted the motion upon the ground that the plaintiff could not combine in one complaint claims for money due her personally and claims for money due her as ancillary guardian of the estates of the children. The record before us does not so show. The motion of the defendant was as we have stated it, and the action of the court, so far as the record shows, was to grant the motion without comment.
Affirmed.