Free Motion for More Definite Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 7

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

KRISTEN GARCIA DUMONT, State Bar No. 191554 ERIN M. DOYLE, State Bar No. 233113 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant M2 MEDICAL, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PHILIPPE Z. ZATTA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: C08-01841 RS DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SAME [F.R.C.P 12(e)] Date: July 2, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: Courtroom 4 Before: Hon. Richard Seeborg

11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 M2 MEDICAL, INC., 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT TO PLAINTIFF PHILIPPE ZATTA (IN PRO PER): PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT ON July 2, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the above-titled Court located at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, Defendant M2 Medical, Inc. will and hereby does move this Court, pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an Order requiring Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of his claims. This Motion is made on the following grounds: Plaintiff's Complaint is not clearly separated by causes of action, rendering it indefinite and unintelligible such that Defendant cannot ascertain the nature of claims being asserted
DEF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MPA ISO SAME [RULE 12(e)]; CASE NO.: C08-01841 RS

-1-

3352713_1.DOC

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 7

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

against it or determine from the Complaint which allegations are intended to support which claims. This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, the records and files herein, all matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and on such evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing on this matter. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Defendant understands that Plaintiff intends to bring an employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, as claims of discrimination can take many forms, courts have agreed that bringing claims under the umbrella of Title VII, without further specification of the type of claims alleged or the grounds upon which they are based, is insufficiently specific to merit a responsive pleading. In his Complaint, Plaintiff purports to assert several different violations of Title VII, but fails to properly identify specific causes of action in the body of the Complaint, lay out the legal elements for those causes of action, or to designate which facts apply to which claims. Plaintiff's unintelligible pleading makes it virtually impossible for Defendant to decipher or defend against the claims brought by Plaintiff. Defendants have a right to have notice of the claims against them, so they may prepare a proper defense. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully asks this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), to grant its Motion for a More Definite Statement. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT A Rule 12(e) motion shall be granted where the complaint is so indefinite and unintelligible that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the claims being asserted. Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1461 (C.D. Cal. 1996). A court will find that a complaint is indefinite where it is not separated into distinct causes of action or where it is virtually impossible to know what allegations of fact are intended to support what claim(s) of relief. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that a Rule 12 motion is appropriately granted where complaint not separated by causes of action and fails to 3352713_1.DOC DEF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION -2FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MPA ISO SAME [RULE 12(e)]; CASE NO.: C08-01841 RS

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 7

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

identify which facts apply to each cause of action); see also, Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees, 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996) (a defendant is expected to move the court, pursuant to Rule 12(e), to require the plaintiff to file a more definite statement where multiple claims are not set forth in separate counts). Moreover, pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Further, Rule 10(b) requires that A party must state its claims . . . in numbered paragraphs, each limited so far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. . . . If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count. . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff's Complaint is not pleaded in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, even under the exceptionally liberal pleading standards afforded in pro per litigants. In the jurisdictional section of his form "Employment Discrimination Complaint", Plaintiff generally alleges that this action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Complaint, ¶ 3. Plaintiff does not, however, specify which causes of action he is bringing under the complex and detailed statute of Title VII. Further compounding matters, Plaintiff also alleges what appear to be several separate transactions or occurrences, which suggests that he does indeed intend to bring more than a single discrimination claim based on a isolated adverse employment action. For instance, Plaintiff alleges that the termination of his employment was discriminatory with respect to race. Complaint, ¶¶ 4, 5. In describing the basic facts surrounding this claim of discriminatory termination, however, Plaintiff alleges that he was harassed, that his supervisor used racially offensive comments, that Plaintiff unsuccessfully complained about harassment to various persons at the Company, that Plaintiff reported racial discrimination to the EEOC and DFEH, and that Plaintiff was eventually terminated. Complaint, ¶ 6. It is nearly impossible to ascertain from this commingling of circumstances what claims Plaintiff seeks to allege. If Plaintiff seeks to allege harassment or retaliation claims in addition to an adverse action 3352713_1.DOC DEF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION -3FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MPA ISO SAME [RULE 12(e)]; CASE NO.: C08-01841 RS

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 7

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

discrimination claim, he should be required to bring such claims in separate counts. Causes of action for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation are each separate claims, involving different sets of operative facts, legal theories, and requirements of proof. In Hearne v. Welch & Allan, No. CV 05-236-S-EJL, 2006 WL 22184 (D.Idaho, Jan. 4, 2006), the plaintiff brought an employment discrimination case against his former employer. In his first cause of action, the plaintiff alleged a violation of Title VII and made allegations of both sexual harassment and retaliation. In opposition to the employer's Rule 12(e) motion requesting that the plaintiff amend his complaint and state his claims with more particularity, the plaintiff maintained that his harassment and retaliation claims could be combined under one cause of action because they were asserted pursuant to the same statute. The court rejected plaintiff's argument and granted the employer's motion, finding that the plaintiff's complaint suffered from a "mixing-of-claims" problem that violated Rule 8(a). The court stated that "Title VII, in its entirety, contains the basis for many causes of action, including retaliation and many types of sexual harassment [e.g., quid pro quo sexual harassment or sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment]." Id. at *2; see also, Byrne v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., No. 2:06-CV-1084WKWWO, 2008 WL 694718 (M.D.Ala. March 12, 2008) (finding that complaint must be amended where sex discrimination in violation of Title VII claim failed to sufficiently identify whether claim was based on creation of hostile work environment or through a tangible employment action). Similarly, in the instant case, Plaintiff purports to assert separate claims under a single cause of action for violation of Title VII. Plaintiff's indiscriminate grouping of allegations makes it impossible for Defendant to reasonably respond on a claim-by-claim basis. As the court explained in the Hearne case, a defendant "should not have to speculate or determine the nature of the claims brought against [it] through inferences because Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) requires a short and plain statement of the grounds alleged." Id. at *3. Here, Plaintiff does not allege separate violations of Title VII such that Defendant can respond to the Complaint without speculating as to what claims Plaintiff may be bringing.
DEF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MPA ISO SAME [RULE 12(e)]; CASE NO.: C08-01841 RS

-4-

3352713_1.DOC

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 7

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In addition to providing sufficient notice such that Defendant can understand Plaintiff's claims and frame a responsive responding, Plaintiff should also be required to provide a more definite statement so as facilitate orderly proceedings in this matter. As several courts have recognized, "[e]xperience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court's docket becomes unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses confidence in the court's ability to administer justice." Bautista, 216 F.3d at 841; Anderson, 77 F.3d 364 at 366. These considerations are perhaps of even greater consequence when one of the litigants is appearing in pro per, as in the instant case. Indeed, counsel for Defendant has already attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the claims set forth in his Complaint, to no avail. Declaration of Erin M. Doyle, ¶ 2. Plaintiff made clear that he has no interest in talking with defense counsel for any purpose other than settlement, and requested that defense counsel refrain from contacting him again unless it is to initiate settlement discussions. Id. Plaintiff's stated intentions underscore the need for Court intervention at this early stage, as it will be extremely difficult for the parties themselves to frame the issues in the course of discovery. Ensuring that the Plaintiff's claims and their elements are clearly presented from the outset will assist both the parties and the court in future proceedings in this matter. Defendant respectfully requests that this Court require Plaintiff to draft a complaint identifying each of the causes of action brought against the Defendant, and designating which facts support each of those causes of action. Bautista, 216 F.3d at 841. Without an intelligible complaint, Defendant will be severely prejudiced in its defense of this matter as it cannot even identify the claims brought against it, much less whether Plaintiff has stated claims against it as a matter of law.

DEF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MPA ISO SAME [RULE 12(e)]; CASE NO.: C08-01841 RS

-5-

3352713_1.DOC

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 7

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 6 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

III.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant

Defendant's Rule 12(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement.

Dated: May 12, 2008

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation

By: _____________/S/__________________ Kristen Garcia Dumont [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant M2 MEDICAL, INC.

DEF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MPA ISO SAME [RULE 12(e)]; CASE NO.: C08-01841 RS

-6-

3352713_1.DOC

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 7-2

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

KRISTEN GARCIA DUMONT, State Bar No. 191554 ERIN M. DOYLE, State Bar No. 233113 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant M2 MEDICAL, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PHILIPPE Z. ZATTA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: C08-01841 RS [PROPOSED] ORDER Date: July 2, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: Courtroom 4 Before: Hon. Richard Seeborg

11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 M2 MEDICAL, INC., 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant M2 Medical, Inc.'s Rule 12(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement came on regularly for hearing on July 2, 2008, the Honorable Richard Seeborg presiding. After consideration of all papers submitted and oral argument, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(e) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is indefinite and unintelligible such that it is impossible to ascertain the nature of the claims being asserted. Plaintiff must prepare a complaint separated by causes of action and sufficiently clear to establish which allegations support each claim for relief. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12(e); Fed. Rule Civ. P. 8(a); Fed. Rule Civ. P. 10(b).

[PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO.: C08-01841 RS

-1-

3356293_1.DOC

Case 5:08-cv-01841-RMW

Document 7-2

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PROPOSED ORDER

Dated: ___________________, 2008 ___________________________________ The Honorable Richard Seeborg United States Magistrate Judge

-2-

3356293_1.DOC

CASE NO.: C08-01841 RS