Taylor v. Community Associates, Inc.

Full title: TOMMY TAYLOR and LADONNA TAYLOR v. COMMUNITY ASSOCIATES, INC. JEROME H…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Mar 30, 2005

Civil Action No. 04-2570 SECTION "T" (5) (E.D. La. Mar. 30, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-2570 SECTION "T" (5).

March 30, 2005

G. PORTEOUS, District Judge

Before the Court is a Motion to Strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) and Motion for More Definite Statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) submitted by the defendants. The Court, having reviewed the said motion, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, is fully advised in the premises and ready to rule.

ORDER AND REASONS

I. BACKGROUND:

In filing these motions, the defendants have moved for a more definitive statement regarding certain allegations set forth in the Complaint. In addition, the defendants have requested that the "Introduction" section of the complaint be removed based on the argument that this section provides an "immaterial and impertinent, alleged history" of credit lending.

Plaintiffs contend that this introductory section is provided "primarily for the benefit of the court." Plaintiffs also assert that the defendants' request for more definite statements is a transparent attempt to force the plaintiffs to open their file before defendants even answer the complaint.

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Allegations in a complaint which supply background or historical material will not be stricken unless unduly prejudicial to the defendant. Fuchs Sugar Syrups, Inc. v. Amstar Corp., 402 F.Supp. 636, 637-38 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). Rule 12(f) allows the Court to order stricken any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Accordingly, this Court holds that the "Introduction" section (approximately the first 4 pages) be stricken from the Complaint as it is prejudicial and unnecessary.

In addition, the Court holds that the plaintiffs have sufficiently pled fraud with particularity as evidenced by Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

A motion for a more definite statement may not be used as a substitute for discovery. Amoco Chemical Co. v. Tex Tin Corp., 925 F.Supp. 1192, 1211 (S.D. Tex. 1996.) If the defendants do not agree with any statement alleged in the complaint, then they can simply answer the complaint and deny any portions that they feel are false. Thus, the Court denies the request of the defendants to remove or amend any other portions of the Complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for a More Definite Statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) is GRANTED IN PART, with respect to the four Introductory paragraphs of the Complaint, and DENIED IN PART, with respect to the pleading of fraud.