Ross Good v. Diskeeper Corporation
Filing
45
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion 12 , 32 . (See attached Minute Order for further information). Here, the details sought by Defendant are obtainable through discovery, and so the Court DENIES its motion for a more definite statement. No hearing is necessary. FRCP 78; L. R. 7-15. (jp)
<![CDATA[
O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 09-6048 AHM (FFMx) ROSS GOOD v. DISKEEPER CORPORATION Date November 11, 2009
Present: The Honorable S. Eagle Deputy Clerk
A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:
Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)
On June 19, 2009, Plaintiff Ross Good filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant Diskeeper Corporation ("Diskeeper") in Illinois state court, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA") amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq. On July 21, 2009, Defendant removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on August 29, 2009, the case was transferred to this Court. On July 28, 2009, while the case was still before the Northern District of Illinois, Defendant Diskeeper moved for a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), and on August 21, 2009, Defendant renewed that motion in this Court. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) provides that A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. In light of the liberal pleading permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), motions for a more definite statement are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted. 2 Moore's Federal
1
Docket Nos. 12 and 32.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2
CV-90 (06/04)
O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 09-6048 AHM (FFMx) ROSS GOOD v. DISKEEPER CORPORATION Date November 11, 2009
Practice (3rd ed.) § 12.36[1]. Ordinarily, a motion for a more definite statement should not be granted "unless the defendant literally cannot frame a responsive pleading." Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F.Supp. 1450, 1461 (C.D. Cal. 1996). The motion is not a substitute for discovery; if the detail sought "is obtainable through discovery, the motion should be denied." Beery v. Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc., 157 F.R.D. 477, 480 (C.D. Cal. 1993). Here, Defendant can form a responsive pleading. Its only remaining ground for this motion is that the Complaint is intentionally vague as to whether Plaintiff received the receipt that allegedly illegally displayed his credit card's expiration date via mail or email. Defendant argues that because some--though by no means all--courts have held that electronic transmissions do not violate FACTA, Defendant is entitled to be informed in the Complaint as to whether Plaintiff alleges an electronic or paper transmission so that it can challenge Plaintiff's claim in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.2 See Complaint ¶ 18. However, Defendant is not entitled to be informed of every facet of Plaintiff's case at the pleadings stage--it need only receive enough detail to be informed of the nature of the claims against it and to be able to form a responsive pleading. Plaintiff's Complaint satisfies those requirements. Here, the details sought by Defendant are obtainable through discovery, and so the Court DENIES its motion for a more definite statement. No hearing is necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. R. 7-15.
: Initials of Preparer se
Defendant also argues that because Plaintiff's opposition to this motion was filed one day late, it should be disregarded. The Court declines to do so in this case.
2
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
