Brandt v. Wal-Mart Louisiana L.L.C., No. 2:2015cv05205 - Document 15 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS re 7 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Rule 12(E) Motion for More Definite Statement. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Rule 12(e) motion for more definite statement is GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall file, no later than Thursda y, April 28, 2016, at 5:00 p.m., an amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the Defendants right to re-urge the motion to dismiss after Plaintiff amends her complaint. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/13/2016. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brandt v. Wal-Mart Louisiana L.L.C. Doc. 15 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A MELISSA BRAN D T, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15 -5 2 0 5 W AL-MART LOU ISIAN A, LLC, D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E”( 2 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is the Defendant’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 The m otion is opposed. 2 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 This is a personal-injury case. On Septem ber 14, 20 15, Plaintiff Melissa Brandt filed a Petition for Dam ages against the Defendant, Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC, in the 34th J udicial District Court for the Parish of St. Bernard, State of Louisiana. 3 On October 16, 20 15, the case was rem oved to federal court on the basis of the Court’s diversity-ofcitizen ship jurisdiction. 4 Plaintiff’s claim s arise out of a forklift accident involving her husban d, Christopher Brandt, at the Wal-Mart store located at 5110 J efferson Highway in Harahan, Louisiana. 5 According to the state-court petition, on April 7, 20 15, Christopher Brandt, a technician 1 R. Doc. 7. R. Doc. 8. 3 R. Doc. 1-2 at 1. 4 See generally R. Doc. 1. 5 R. Doc. 1-2 at 1– 2. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com for Malin USA, a forklift service com pany, was dispatched to the Wal-Mart store to perform m aintenance on a forklift owned and operated by Wal-Mart. 6 After “jacking up” the forklift to access its underbody, the Plaintiff claim s the forklift “crashed to the ground” and crushed Christopher Brandt, killing him . 7 As a result of the accident and her husband’s death, Plaintiff Melissa Brandt filed wrongful death and survival actions against Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC, under Louisiana law. 8 According to Plaintiff, Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC, is responsible, at least in part, for Christopher Brandt’s death under theories of negligence and/ or strict liability. 9 Specifically, as alleged in the state-court petition, Plaintiff contends the Defendant “negligently stored, m aintained, [and] operated the forklift” and “failed to provide a safe m anner to access the forklift.”10 Plaintiff argues Christopher Brandt “died as a direct and proxim ate result” of the negligent acts described above. 11 Plaintiff also asserts a strict liability cause of action, arguing the forklift was in the “custody, care, an d control” of the Defendant and that Christopher Brandt died as a “direct and proxim ate result of the ruin, vice, or defect of the forklift that should have been known by the defendant.”12 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS Defendant, Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC, m oves to dism iss Plaintiff’s claim s under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for a m ore definite statem ent of Plaintiff’s claim s under Rule 12(e). 13 According to the Defen dant, Plaintiff’s claim s consist of “conclusory allegations of negligence, devoid of the factual 6 Id. at 2. Id. 8 Id. at 4. 9 Id. at 3– 4. 10 Id. at 3. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 See generally R. Docs. 7, 7-1. 7 2 content necessary to state a claim for relief against Wal-Mart.”14 More specifically, the Defendant contends the state-court petition m erely alleges, in a conclusory m anner, “that Wal-Mart was negligent in failing to properly store, m aintain, and operate the forklift, and in failing to provide a safe m anner to access the forklift. . . . Alternatively, the Petition alleges that Wal-Mart is strictly liable for a vice or defect in a thing in its custody, the forklift.”15 The Defen dant m aintains that such allegations are insufficient to state viable claim s for relief again st Wal-Mart pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and, therefore, Plaintiff’s claim s should be dism issed, or in the alternative, Plaintiffs should be required to provide a m ore definite statem ent of the claim s against Wal-Mart pursuant to Rule 12(e). “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.”16 Rule 12(e) allows a party to m ove for a m ore definite statem ent of a com plaint when it is “so vague or am biguous that the party can not reasonably prepare a response.”17 The United States Suprem e Court has held 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. 18 “A com plaint 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 14 R. Doc. 7-1 at 1. Id. at 2. 16 Martin v. Tesoro Corp., No. 2:11-CV-1413, 20 12 WL 1866841, at *2 (W.D. La. May 21, 20 12) (citations om itted). 17 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). 18 Sw ierkiew icz v. Sorem a N .A., 534 U.S. 50 6, 514 (20 0 2). 15 3 inferences to be drawn that these elem ents exist.”19 “In deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(e) m otion, the trial judge is given considerable discretion.”20 The Court finds that the claim s alleged by the Plaintiff in her state-court petition are vague and am biguous and, under Rule 12(e), require am endm ent. The Court thus grants the Defendant’s Rule 12(e) m otion for a m ore definite statem ent. The Plaintiff shall file an am ended com plaint setting forth m ore detailed factual allegations and specifying her causes of action and bases therefor, such that the Defendant can prepare an appropriate response to Plaintiff’s claim s. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORD ERED that Defendant’s Rule 12(e) m otion for m ore defin ite statem ent is GRAN TED , an d Plaintiff shall file, no later than Th u rs d a y, Ap ril 2 8 , 2 0 16 , at 5:0 0 p .m ., an am ended com plaint. IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss is D EN IED W ITH OU T PREJU D ICE to the Defendant’s right to re-urge the m otion to dism iss after Plaintiff am ends her com plaint. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 13 th d ay o f Ap ril, 2 0 16 . ______________ _______ ________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 19 Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.3d 161, 164 (5th Cir. 1999). 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)). 20 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.
