Bankruptcy Courts.15Īdditionally, the standards of review are different between Rule 12(b) and 12(e) motions. After a plaintiff files a complaint, Rule 12(b) counsels a defendant upon the bases she can properly file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a responsive pleading to the complaint.12 If, however, a complaint pleads a viable legal theory, but is so unclear that the opposing party cannot respond to the complaint, then a Rule 12(e) motion for more definite statement is proper.13 Further, when a defendant is unclear about the meaning of a particular allegation in the complaint, the proper course is not to move to dismiss, but rather to move for a more definite statement.14 Rule 12(e) motions also apply to adversary proceedings in U.S. Moreover, there is more than a mere procedural distinction between the two motions. Further, prolix, confusing complaints impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges.10 Therefore, a motion for more definite statement is an appropriate device to narrow the issues and disclose the boundaries of the claim and aid the preparation of any defense.11 Relationship to Rule 12(b) Motions to DismissĪt the onset, it is paramount to understand that a motion for more definite statement must not be confused with a motion to dismiss, as the two are not interchangeable. A “shotgun” pleading is a pleading in which it is virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact 9 are intended to support which claim(s) for relief. One particularly onerous form of elusive pleading is known as the shotgun pleading. Importantly, motions for a more definite statement are viewed with disfavor by the courts and are rarely granted.8 Where a responsive pleading is not required or permitted, a motion under Rule 12(e) for a more definite statement is inappropriate.7 On a practical note, frequently, a telephone call from one attorney to another can result in a party supplying the necessary detail to file a responsive pleading. To the contrary, all the Rules require is ‘a short and plain statement of the claim’ that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”5 Indeed, even the assertion of inconsistent claims does not make the complaint insufficient under either Rule 8 or Rule 12(e).6Ī Rule 12(e) motion must point out, with specificity, the defects complained of and the details desired. It is well established that, under the rules of notice pleading, “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. The primary difficulty with such motions is the liberal rules of notice pleading. In general, the federal rules simply require a plain statement of the claim that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.2 In practice, a complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.3 If, however, a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a responsive pleading cannot be framed, the responding party need not serve a response but may instead move the court for an order directing the pleader to serve a more definite statement.4 Although motions for a more definite statement can bring valuable clarity to a pleading, they are only appropriate where a pleading is truly vague or ambiguous. This article seeks to shed light on the purposes and pitfalls to filing Rule 12(e) motions for a more definite statement in federal courts. Appropriately used, these motions can significantly reduce the costs associated with litigation. Despite the continued decline in the number of motions for more definite statement,1 a motion for more definite statement can be an essential tool for litigators.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |