Robinson v. Provo City et al, No. 2:2015cv00311 - Document 13 (D. Utah 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 12 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 10/22/2015. (blh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Robinson v. Provo City et al Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH HAROLD ROBINSON, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Plaintiff, v. PROVO CITY, a municipal corporation, RUSSELL BILLINGS, DEVON JENSEN, LUIFAU UIPI, and DON WEIDINGER, Case No. 2:15-CV-311 TS Defendants. District Judge Ted Stewart This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides that “[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 that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Defendants request the Court order Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement. Defendants argue that the Complaint Plaintiff served on them is missing a number of paragraphs and, without those paragraphs, Defendants are unable to reasonably prepare a response. Having reviewed the docket, the Court will deny Defendants’ request. While Plaintiff may have failed to serve a complete copy of his Complaint on Defendants, the Complaint on file with the Court contains the missing paragraphs that Defendants seek. Thus, there is no need for a more definite statement. Defendants can consult the Complaint on the docket to prepare their response. 1 Dockets.Justia.com It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement (Docket No. 12) is DENIED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), Defendants’ responsive pleading must be served within fourteen (14) days of this Order. DATED this 22nd day of October, 2015. BY THE COURT: Ted Stewart United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
