MICHAELS v. ALEXANDRA
Filing
51
ORDER denying 41 Motion for More Definite Statement without prejudice. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 7-11-13. (bfm )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
)
)
)
DARREN MICHAELS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
)
BAJ ALEXANDRA and UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 12-219E
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs "Motion for More Definite Statement Rule
12(e)(g)" [ECF #41].
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) states:
(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement. 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. If the court orders a more definite
statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or
within the time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other
appropriate order.
Id. To date, Defendants have not filed "a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed."
Id. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion must be denied as being premature.
AND NOW, this ~ day of July, 2013, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that Plaintiffs "Motion for More Definite Statement Rule 12(e)(g)" [ECF #41] is
DENIED without prejudice.
jti(~
PC)) ~
y;
Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
\
Senior District Court Judge
]]>
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?
