Holdner v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, No. 3:2009cv00979 - Document 39 (D. Or. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - Respondents' Rule 12(e) motion 35 is GRANTED and Holdner is ordered to make the pleadings more definite by filing an amended complaint that incorporates all of his allegations, by March 15, 2010. Signed on 2/25/10 by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION WILLIAM F. BOLDNER, Civ. No. 09-979-AC OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner, v. KATY COBA, Directors, Individually and Employee of the Oregon Department of Agriculture RAY JAINDL, Administrator, Individually and Employee of the Oregon Depatiment of Agriculture and WYM MATTBEWS, CAFO Program Manager, Individually and Employee of Oregon Depatiment of Agriculture, Respondents, ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge: OPINION AND ORDER I {TDW} Introduction Respondents Katy Coba ("Coba"), Ray Jaindl ("Jaindl"), and Wym Matthews ("Matthews") (collectively "Respondents") move the court for an order to make the pleadings more definite pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(e). Respondents argue that Petitioner William F. Holdner ("Holdner") purports to incorporate his original complaint and a supplemental complaint into his First Amended Complaint, and therefore move to make the pleadings more definite by combining all claims into one comprehensive pleading. For the reasons that follow, the Respondent's Rule 12(e) motion is granted. Procedural Background On August 20, 2009, Boldner filed a complaint against the Oregon Department of Agriculture. On September 2, 2009, the State of Oregon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the action was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. On November 12, 2009, this comt issued Findings and Recommendation granting the State's motion and with leave to replead. On December 23, 2009, District Judge James A. Redden adopted the Findings and Recommendation. On December 23,2009, Holdner subsequently filed his "First Amended Complaint," which included a statement incorporating his original Complaint. On January 5, 20 I0, Respondents answered the First Amended Complaint. On Januaty 12,2010, Holdner filed a "Supplemental Infonnation," which purportedly supplements the "First Amended Complaint." Discussion Respondents have moved the comt for an order to make the pleadings more definite. Rule 12(e) provides that "[a] patty may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a OPINION AND ORDER 2 {TDW} responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response." FED. R. ClV. P. l2(e). "Motions for a more definite statement are viewed with disfavor, and are rarely granted." Cellars v. Pacific Coast Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citations omitted). As one court observed, "Rule l2(e) motions attack the intelligibility of the complaint, not the lack of detail, and are properly denied where the complaint notifies the defendant of the substance of the claims assetted." Presido Group, LLC v. G},IAC jYfortg., LLC, 2008 WL 3992765, *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 25, 2008) (citations omitted). Thus, in evaluating a motion under Rule l2(e), the proper test is to detetmine "whether the complaint provides the defendant with a sufficient basis to frame his responsive pleadings." Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. kfusacchio, 695 F. Supp. 1053, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 1988). Additionally, Local Rule 15.1(c) requires that any party filing an amended or supplemental pleading must reproduce the entire pleading, and may not incorporate any part of the prior pleading by reference. Local Rules of Civil Practice l5.l(c), District of Oregon (2009). In this case, Holdner seeks to incorporate both his Complaint and his Supplemental Information into the First Amended Complaint. For example, Holdner' s First Amended Complaint states, "For all the foregoing facts including those in the original complaint the Petitioner's position is that actions were discriminatOlY and named Respondents lacked authority in application of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act[.]" (First Am. Compl. at 3.) Such incorporation is expressly prohibited by Local Rule l5.l(c). The court agrees with Respondents that their motion is not a pro forma objection or pure fOlmality, given that Respondents filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint prior to Holdner' s filing of his Supplemental Information. Respondents are entitled to a single comprehensive OPINION AND ORDER 3 {TDW} complaint in compliance with Local Rule 15.1(c). Accordingly, Holdner is ordered to make the pleadings more definite pursuant to Rule 12(e), by filing an amended pleading that contains the whole of his allegations. Conclusion For the reasons stated, Respondents' Rule 12(e) motion (#35) is GRANTED and Holdner is ordered to make the pleadings more definite by filing an amended complaint that incorporates all of his allegations, by March 15,2010. DATED this 25th day of February, 2010. -././.'.1' (\;. (~/-._/ /./.··.·.n .. J. . \ .. JOHNV. COSTA \ United States Magistrate Judge J OPINION AND ORDER 4 {TDW}
]]>
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.
