Free MEMORANDUM in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER Plaintiff, v. JOHN GARBINSKI, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MARGIE MACLEISH, Third-Party Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Civil Action No. 08-cv-269-UNA

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT MACLEISH'S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 1. Third-Party Defendant Margie MacLeish removed this action from the Justice of

the Peace Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County on May 5, 2008. (Doc. No. 1.) 2. Plaintiff Bayhealth Medical Center ("Bayhealth") appears to have filed a lawsuit

in Justice of the Peace Court against Defendant John Garbinski, alleging, inter alia, that Garbinski owes Bayhealth $3,266.00 in unpaid medical expenses. A copy of Bayhealth's state court Complaint is attached as Exhibit A. 3. On or about February 29, 2008, Garbinski filed a Third-Party Complaint against

MacLeish purporting to assert a "debt" claim against MacLeish and alleging that MacLeish is a "Corporation or other Artificial Entity." A copy of Garbinski's state court Third-Party Complaint is attached as Exhibit B. MacLeish was served with Garbinski's Third-Party

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 2 of 5

Complaint on April 22, 2008. 4. MacLeish is an employee of the United States Air Force who assisted Garbinski in

filing a claim with the United States Department of Labor's Office of Worker's Compensation Program ("OWCP"), which claim was accepted. (See Ex. C.) All of MacLeish's actions assisting Garbinski were taken in her capacity as a federal employee, and all of her actions were reasonable and taken in good faith. Accordingly, MacLeish is likely immune from Garbinski's claims. 5. As explained below, Garbinski should be required to make a more definite

statement because this is one of those rare cases where MacLeish cannot reasonably respond to the Third-Party Complaint. In the alternative, Garbinski's Third-Party Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 6. A motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) "is directed to the

rare case where because of the vagueness or ambiguity of the pleading the answering party will not be able to frame a responsive pleading." Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publication, Inc., 370 F.2d 795, 798 (3d Cir. 1967). 7. Here, MacLeish is unable to reasonably respond to the Complaint. Garbinski's

Third-Party Complaint contains so few factual allegations that MacLeish is unable to decipher the purported basis for his claim. Paragraph One of the form third-party complaint that Garbinski used instructed him to make a "Concise Statement of Facts: (Who, What, When, Where, How?)." (Ex. B. ¶ 1.) In response, Garbinski alleged, "Acct # 0516100262K DOS 6-102005 Unpaid Medical Bills to Bayhealth Medical Center. Patient: John C. Garbinski Amount: $3266.00." (Id.) That statement comprises all of Garbinski's factual allegations. MacLeish is 2

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 3 of 5

unable to reasonably form a response to these "allegations." Under these circumstances, other courts have required plaintiffs to make a more definite statement. See, e.g., Barr ex rel. Estate of Barr v. City of Beaver Falls, No. 07-340, 2007 WL 3146817, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2007) (in a case removed from state court, granting defendants' Rule 12(e) motion because the complaint was "clearly insufficient to afford Becze and Couper the opportunity to frame a meaningful qualified immunity defense"). Similarly, this Court should require Garbinski to make a more definite statement. 9. In the alternative, Garbinski's Third-Party Complaint should be dismissed for

failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Here, Plaintiff does not even recite the elements of a claim, let alone make any facutal allegations to support a claim. Accordingly, Garbinski's Third-Party Complaint should be dismissed.

3

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 4 of 5

10.

For all of the above reasons, MacLeish respectfully requests that her Motion For

A More Definite Statement be granted. Specifically, Garbinksi should be required to allege facts and a legal basis for any claim against MacLeish. In the alternative, Garbinski's Third-Party Complaint should be dismissed. DATED: May 13, 2008. Respectfully submitted, COLM F. CONNOLLY United States Attorney By: /s/ Seth M. Beausang Seth M. Beausang (De. I.D. No. 4071) Assistant United States Attorney The Nemours Building 1007 Orange Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 2046 Wilmington, DE 19899-2046 (302) 573-6277 Attorney for Third-Party Defendant

4

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Seth M. Beausang, hereby attest under penalty of perjury that on this 13th day of May, 2008, I directed that two copies of the Third-Party Defendant's Motion For A More Definite Statement or, In The Alternative, To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, and proposed Order, be sent to the following pro se Plaintiff by First Class Mail: John Garbinski 1419 Wharton Drive Newark, DE 19711 and the following counsel for Bayhealth Medical Center by First Class Mail: Alexander William Funk, Esquire Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher 225 South State Street

/s/ Seth M. Beausang Assistant United States Attorney

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4-2

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4-2

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4-2

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4-3

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 1 of 5

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4-3

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 2 of 5

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4-3

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 3 of 5

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4-3

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 4 of 5

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4-3

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 5 of 5

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4-4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4-4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00269-JJF

Document 4-4

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 3 of 3