Thompson et al v. Capstone Logistics, LLC et al, No. 4:2015cv02464 - Document 23 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 17 Motion for More Definite Statement.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rhawkins)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Thompson et al v. Capstone Logistics, LLC et al Doc. 23 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MARC THOMSON, et al., § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, VS. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC and LMS INTELLIBOUND, LLC, Defendants. November 17, 2015 David J. Bradley, Clerk Civ. A. H-15-2464 OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court in the above referenced cause seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act is Defendants Capstone Logistics, LLC and LMS Intellibound, LLC’s motion for more definite statement (instrument #17) on the ground that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (#9) is too vague and ambiguous for Defendants to prepare a response. Plaintiffs perform manual labor unloading pallets of groceries from trucks owned by Defendants’ clients, for which they are paid on a piece rate or production basis, i.e., based on the number and weight of the trucks they unload.1 Amended Complaint they claim that Defendants failed to accurately pay Plaintiffs for their work on an hourly basis. claims, number Plaintiffs of hours In their First allege that Plaintiffs Defendants actually Among specific under-reported worked each week the in subtracting time for meal breaks even though Plaintiffs worked 1 The Court notes that when workers are paid by “piece rate,” as opposed to the more common 40-hour week, their “regular rate” is determined by dividing the total compensations earned during a work week by the total hours worked. 29 U.S.C. § 207(g)(1). For each hour of overtime piece work hey are paid an additional one half of their hourly rate. 29 C.F.R. § 778.111. -1- Dockets.Justia.com through them, failing to count the time Plaintiffs were on duty waiting to unload trucks or perform other tasks for Defendants, and consistently clocking out the unloaders before they finished working. Rule 12(e) states, “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 and the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Such motions are not favored and are granted sparingly. Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir. 1959); Conceal City, LLC v. Looper Law Enforcement, LLC, 917 F. Supp. 2d 611, 621 (N.D. Tex. 2013). The motion must be made prior to filing a responsive pleading and “must point out the defects complained of and the details desired.” Rule 12(e). A court should only grant a motion for more definite statement when the complaint is “so excessively vague and ambiguous to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to answer it.” Phillips v. ABB Combustion Eng’g, Inc., Civ. A. No. 13-594, 2012 WL 3155224, at *2 (E.D. La. June 19, 2013). A motion for more definite statement should not be used as a substitute for discovery; it should be used as a remedy for unintelligible pleading, not for correcting a lack of detail. Davenport v. Rodriguez, 147 F. Supp. 2d 630, 639 (S.D. Tex. 2001). The court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant such a motion. Ditcharo v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 376 Fed. Appx. 432, 440 n.9 (5th Cir. 2010), citing Old Time Enterprises, Inc. v. International Coffee Corp., 862 F.2d 1213, 1217 (5th Cir. 1989). -2- After reviewing the Amended Complaint and the briefs, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they have adequately pleaded their claims. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the motion for more definite statement (#17) is DENIED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 17th day of November , 2015. ___________________________ MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-
]]>
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.
