Hudson v. SEISCO International Limited, No. 2:2015cv00836 - Document 60 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS re 46 MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION to Strike Defenses and Demand for Jury. IT IS ORDERED that Hudsons Rule 12(e) motion for more definite statement is GRANTED. SEISCO shall file, no later than May 6, 2016, at 5:00 p.m., an amended counterclaim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hudsons Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Hudsons right to re-urge the motion to dismiss after SEISCO amends its counterclaim. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

Download PDF

Hudson v. SEISCO International Limited Doc. 60 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A W ILLIAM H U D SON , Pla in tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15-8 3 6 SEISCO IN TERN ATION AL LIMITED , D e fe n d an t SECTION “E” ( 3 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss or, in the alternative, a Rule 12(e) m otion for m ore definite statem ent. 1 For the reasons that follow, the Rule 12(e) m otion for m ore definite statem ent is GRAN TED , and the Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss is D EN IED W ITH OU T PREJU D ICE. BACKGROU N D On February 13, 20 15, Plaintiff William Hudson (“Hudson”) filed this suit in the 24th J udicial District Court in J efferson Parish, Louisiana, against his form er em ployer, Defendant SEISCO International Lim ited (“SEISCO”). 2 Hudson alleges that from 20 10 to 20 14, he was em ployed as SEISCO’s vice president an d national sales m anager. 3 Hudson contends SEISCO “unilaterally and without notice reduced Hudson’s salary” on February 1, 20 14, an d term inated his em ploym ent on J une 13, 20 14, in violation of his em ploym ent agreem ent with SEISCO. 4 Hudson seeks dam ages for unpaid wages and breach of contract. 5 SEISCO rem oved the case to this Court on March 18, 20 15. 6 1 R. Doc. 46. R. Doc. 1-1. 3 Id. at 1. 4 Id. at 2– 3. 5 Id. at 4. 6 R. Doc. 1. SEISCO filed an am ended notice of rem oval on March 24, 20 15. R. Doc. 6. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com On March 2, 20 16, SEISCO am ended its answer, asserting a counterclaim against Hudson for fraud. 7 SEISCO alleges in its counterclaim that Hudson “subm itted som e expen se item s on m ore than one occasion and that unknowingly these item s were paid in duplicate to [Hudson],” and that, “[u]pon inform ation and belief, Hudson’s actions in subm itting duplicate expense requests constitute fraud.”8 SEISCO alleges that, if Hudson’s conduct does not rise to the level of fraud, his conduct constitutes “a breach of fiduciary duty, a m isrepresentation, conversion and a breach of any im plied agreem ent, whether express or not.”9 On March 4, 20 16, Hudson filed a m otion to dism iss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), arguing SEISCO fails to state a claim for fraud an d thus the counterclaim should be dism issed. 10 In the alternative, Hudson requests that SEISCO provide a m ore definite statem ent pursuant to Rule 12(e). 11 SEISCO filed an opposition on March 15, 20 16. 12 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS “While a m otion to dism iss under Rule 12(b)(6) attacks a pleading for failing to allege a cognizable legal theory eligible for som e type of relief, a Rule 12(e) m otion for m ore definite statem ents attacks pleadings that do, in fact, state cognizable legal claim s but that fail to state them with sufficient particularity.”13 Rule 12(e) allows a party to m ove for a m ore definite statem ent of a pleading when it is “so vague or am biguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”14 The United States Suprem e Court has held 7 R. Doc. 45. R. Doc. 45-1 at 2. 9 Id. 10 R. Doc. 46. 11 Id. 12 R. Doc. 54. 13 Martin v. Tesoro Corp., No. Civ.A. 11-1413, 20 12 WL 1866841, at *2 (W.D. La. May 21, 20 12) (citations om itted). 14 F ED . R. CIV. P. 12(e). See also Mitchell v. E-Z W ay Tow ers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 130 (5th Cir. 1959). 8 2 that, “[i]f a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a m anner that provides sufficient notice,” then a Rule 12(e) m otion m ay be appropriate. 15 A pleading “will be deem ed inadequate only if it fails to (1) provide notice of the circum stances which give rise to the claim , or (2) set forth sufficient inform ation to outline the elem ents of the claim or perm it inferences to be drawn that these elem ents exist.”16 “In deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(e) m otion, the trial judge is given considerable discretion.”17 Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires parties to “state with particularity the circum stances constituting fraud.”18 Rule 9(b) states, “Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s m ind m ay be alleged generally.”19 Rule 9(f) states that “[a]n allegation of tim e or place is m aterial when testing the sufficiency of a pleading.”20 Hudson argues SEISCO “[has] not plead [sic] the defense of fraud with particularity as required” by Rule 9. 21 The Court finds that the claim for fraud alleged by SEISCO in its counterclaim is vague and am biguous and, under Rule 12(e), requires am endm ent. The Court thus grants Hudson’s Rule 12(e) motion for a m ore definite statem ent. SEISCO shall file an am ended counterclaim setting forth m ore detailed factual allegations and specifying its cause of action and bases therefor, such that Hudson can prepare an appropriate response to SEISCO’s claim . 15 Sw ierkiew icz v. Sorem a N .A., 534 U.S. 50 6, 514 (20 0 2). Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.3d 161, 164 (5th Cir. 1999). 17 Flem ing v. Transocean Offshore USA, Inc., No. Civ.A. 0 4-2740 , 20 0 4 WL 2984325, at *2 (E.D. La. Dec. 14, 20 0 4) (citing N ew court Leasing Corp. v. Regional Bio-Clinical Lab, Inc., No. Civ.A. 99-2626, 20 0 0 WL 13470 0 , at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 1, 20 0 0 ); MedRehab v. Ev angeline v. N atchitoches, Inc., No. Civ.A. 98-1663, 1998 WL 671287, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 24, 1998)). See also Ditcharo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 376 F. App’x 432, 440 n.9 (5th Cir. 20 10 ) (citing Old Tim e En ters., Inc. v. Int’l Coffee Corp., 862 F.2d 1213, 1217 (5th Cir. 1989)). 18 F ED . R. CIV. P. 9(b). 19 Id. 20 F ED . R. CIV. P. 9(f). 21 R. Doc. 46-1 at 5. 16 3 CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons; IT IS ORD ERED that Hudson’s Rule 12(e) m otion for m ore defin ite statem ent is GRAN TED . SEISCO shall file, no later than May 6 , 2 0 16 , at 5:0 0 p .m ., an am ended counterclaim . IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that Hudson’s Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss is D EN IED W ITH OU T PREJU D ICE to Hudson’s right to re-urge the m otion to dism iss after SEISCO am ends its counterclaim . N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 14 th d ay o f Ap ril, 2 0 16 . _______________________ ________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT JU D GE 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.