David v. C and G Boats, Inc., No. 2:2015cv01655 - Document 18 (E.D. La. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - the Court DENIES defendants' Motion 16 for a More DefiniteStatement.. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/18/15. (jjs)

Download PDF

David v. C and G Boats, Inc. Doc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CARLOS DAVID CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 15-1655 C AND G BOATS, INC. SECTION: R(2) ORD ER AN D REASON S Defendants M N M Boats, Inc., and A & A Boats, Inc., m ove the Court for a m ore definite statem ent of plaintiff Carlos David’s claim for dam ages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).1 For the following reasons, the Court denies the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D On May 15, 20 15, plaintiff Carlos David filed this seam an’s com plaint for dam ages following an accident aboard the M/ V MS. J ANE which caused David injuries.2 David originally sued C and G Boats, Inc., alleging that C and G Boats owned and operated the M/ V MS. J ANE at the tim e of David’s accident.3 On J uly 10 , 20 15, David am ended his com plaint, rem oving all references to C and G Boats and adding defendants M N M Boats, Inc., A & A Boats, Inc., and Chet Morrison Contractors, LLC.4 A fair reading of David’s am ended com plaint sets forth the following allegations. 1 See R. Doc. 16. 2 See R. Doc. 1. 3 Id. at 2. 4 See R. Doc. 13. Dockets.Justia.com At all relevant tim es, A & A Boats owned the M/ V MS. J ANE.5 David was em ployed by M N M Boats as a J ones Act seam an. 6 At the tim e of the accident on April 3, 20 15, M N M Boats operated and/ or controlled the M/ V MS. J ANE.7 Chet Morrison Contractors was perform ing certain crane operations aboard the M/ V MS. J ANE at the tim e of David’s accident.8 As a result of the accident, David injured his back, knee, and other parts of his body.9 David alleges that A & A Boats, M N M Boats, and Chet Morrison Contractors were jointly negligent in causing his injuries and are therefore jointly liable for David’s dam ages. As to A & A Boats and M N M Boats, David specifically alleges breach of the duty of reasonable care; failure to provide a reasonably safe place to work; failure to train and supervise; failure to take m eans or precautions to ensure their em ployees’ safety; unseaworthiness; failure to provide m inim um safety requirem ents; failure to provide adequate equipm ent; and failure to provide adequate personnel. 10 As to Chet Morrison Contractors, David specifically alleges breach of the duty of reasonable care, including the operation of the crane used at the tim e of David’s injury; failure to m aintain control of the crane; failure to train and supervise its em ployees; failure to take m eans or precautions to ensure David’s safety; failure to provide m inim um safety requirem ents; failure to provide 5 Id. at 3. 6 Id. at 2. 7 Id. at 3. 8 See id. at 4. 9 Id. at 3. 10 See id. at 4. 2 adequate equipm ent; failure to provide adequate personnel; and failure to adhere to the safety requirem ents specific in its contract regarding crane operations. 11 On J uly 29, 20 15, M N M Boats and A & A Boats m oved the Court to require David to m ore definitely state his claim . Defendants argue that David’s com plaint fails to com ply with the pleading requirem ents of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and is so vague as to prevent a reasonable response.12 David opposes the m otion.13 II. D ISCU SSION A district court will grant a m otion for a m ore definite statem ent pursuant to Rule 12(e) when the pleading at issue “is so vague or am biguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to fram e a responsive pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The m otion m ust state the defects in the pleading and the details desired. See id. A party, however, m ay not use a Rule 12(e) m otion as a substitute for discovery. Mitchell v. E– Z W ay Tow ers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir.1959). Given the liberal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8, Rule 12(e) m otions are disfavored. See Mitchell, 269 F.2d at 132; Gibson v. Deep Delta Contractors, Inc., No. 97– 3791, 20 0 0 WL 28174, at *6 (E.D. La. J an. 14, 20 0 0 ). At the sam e tim e, the Suprem e Court has noted 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. Sw ierkiew icz v. Sorem a N.A., 534 U.S. 50 6, 514 (20 0 2). In deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(e) m otion, the trial judge is given considerable discretion. New court Leasing Corp. 11 See id. at 5. 12 See R. Doc. 16; R. Doc. 16-1. 13 R. Doc. 17. 3 v. Regional Bio– Clinical Lab, Inc., No. 99– 2626, 20 0 0 WL 13470 0 , at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 1, 20 0 0 ). The Court finds David’s com plaint sufficient to withstand defendants’ Rule 12(e) m otion. A com plaint is considered inadequate under the “notice” pleading requirem ents of Rule 8(a) only if it wholly fails to “(1) provide notice of 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.” Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.3d 161, 164 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Gen. Star Indem ., Co. v. Vesta Fire Ins., Corp., 173 F.3d 946, 950 (5th Cir. 1999)). Defendants argue that David’s com plaint lacks sufficient inform ation because he does not allege (1) the details of the accident, (2) the m anner in which he believes the M/ V MS. J ANE, its equipm ent, or its crew were unseaworthy, or (3) the nature of his alleged physical injuries.14 While David’s com plaint is not a m odel of clarity, this inform ation can be readily obtained through discovery. Because a party m ay not use a Rule 12(e) m otion as a substitute for discovery, and because Rule 12(e) m otions are disfavored, the Court denies defendants’ m otion for a m ore definite statem ent. III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendants’Motion for a More Definite Statem ent. 18th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of Septem ber, 20 15. ___________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 14 R. Doc. 16-1 at 3. 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.