BROWN v. PARSONS INSPECTION
Filing
6
ORDER denying 5 Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiff shall file a more definite statement of the complaint within 30 days, etc. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 4/12/12. (gh, )
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SHAROD BROWN
No.: 2:12-cv-1652
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
PARSONS INSPECTION,
HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI
Defendant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant’s motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed this action on January 18, 2012, in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County. Plaintiff’s factual allegations
are sparse: Plaintiff alleges that he was fired for not “doing a part of my job” and
further that his termination was wrong. In their entirety, Plaintiff’s allegations
comprise no more than one paragraph. It is not clear from the face of these
allegations what Plaintiff’s position was, what part of his job he allegedly failed to
do, why his termination was wrongful, the approximate date of the events at issue,
and other facts likely pertinent to his claims. On March 15, 2012, Defendant
removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), arguing that the
1
Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims – unclear though they are – pursuant
to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 28 U.S.C. § 185. On April
5, 2012, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss, claiming Plaintiff’s factual
allegations are too vague to state a claim for relief.
Defendant is correct that Plaintiff’s allegations are too ambiguous and vague
to meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, but
Defendant is wrong that the solution is dismissal. As an initial matter, it is unclear
that the Court even has subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain such a motion. And
while Defendant has sought to introduce evidence and inference to support a
conclusion that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 301,
Defendant’s arguments cannot substitute for Plaintiff’s pleadings. Dismissing
Plaintiff’s case under these circumstances would be improper and unfair. 1
Instead, the Court will sua sponte order Plaintiff to submit a more definite
statement of his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e); see
also Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 n.7 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting district court
may sua sponte require plaintiff to submit more definite statement). After Plaintiff
has submitted the statement, the Court will revisit the issue of subject-matter
jurisdiction, and Defendant will have an opportunity to file a response or renew its
already-filed motion to dismiss.
1
And, in any event, Defendant has presented absolutely no grounds for dismissing Plaintiff’s action with prejudice.
See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 236 (3d Cir. 2008).
2
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown;
IT IS on this 10th day of April, 2012, hereby,
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED without
prejudice to be re-filed; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this Order in
which to file a more definite statement of his complaint. Plaintiff’s more definite
statement should include, at a minimum, allegations regarding the following:
• The identity of his employer (presumably Defendant);
• His work history with that employer, including his job title at the time
of his termination, any prior titles, and the dates of his employment;
• Whether or not he was working as a member of a union at the time of
his firing, and, if so, the identity of his union;
• Whether or not he was, to his knowledge, covered by a collective
bargaining agreement or any other employment contract at the time of
his termination;
• A detailed account of his firing identifying the approximate date he
was terminated and describing, in detail, the events leading up to his
termination, and the circumstances of his termination;
3
• A description of any events that may have occurred after his
termination that were related to his termination (for example, did he
receive a hearing or did he partake in a grievance process); and
• A description of why Plaintiff believes that his employer violated the
law when it terminated him. In this description, Plaintiff should
identify what laws or agreements, if any, he believes were violated.
He may include multiple laws, agreements, or other reasons, which
the Court may interpret as attempting to state separate claims.
In addition to the above, Plaintiff should allege all other facts he believes are
relevant to his claim or claims. The Court will interpret Plaintiff’s statement as
being part of his pleading. If Plaintiff does not file a more definite statement within
30 days, the Court will take any steps it deems necessary to address that failure,
including dismissing Plaintiff’s action in its entirety. And it is further
ORDERED that Defendant shall file a response pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12 within 21 days after being served with Plaintiff’s statement.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
4
]]>
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?
