Opinion
Civil No. 2007-100.
October 9, 2007
Dale R. Michael,, Pro se. Justin Caine Harrell, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., For defendant Elba McIntosh.
ORDER
Before the Court is the motion of defendant Elba McIntosh ("McIntosh") to strike the complaint of the plaintiff, Dale R. Michael ("Michael"), or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement.
I. FACTS
The Complaint in this matter details a rather long and complicated dispute among Michael and his sisters, McIntosh and defendant Betsy Goodwill ("Goodwill"), over land. Reduced to its bare essentials, the Complaint alleges that in 1982, Elizabeth T. Michael ("E. Michael"), the mother of Michael, McIntosh and Goodwill, created a life estate for herself in properties located on St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands and executed an agreement concerning the distribution of the properties to Michael, McIntosh and Goodwill on E. Michael's death. In 1988, Michael informed his family of an imminent divorce. To avoid a cloud on Michael's interest in the properties, Michael conveyed his interests to E. Michael, McIntosh and Goodwill. Michael alleges that the parties had an oral agreement that his interests would be reconveyed to him once the divorce was final. The divorce action was settled in 1993. E. Michael died in 1995. Michael alleges that McIntosh and Goodwill have collected rental income on the properties since E. Michael's death and have not reconveyed Michael's interests to him.
The Complaint asserts diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Michael is a citizen of St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. The Complaint alleges that his sisters are citizens of California and Indiana, respectively.
The agreement did not provide for an equal distribution.
Michael brought this action against McIntosh and Goodwill with the following twelve claims for relief: unjust enrichment, constructive trust, quasi-contract, restitution, specific performance, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, civil conspiracy, resulting trust, testator's intent, and punitive damages. McIntosh has filed the motion now before this Court to strike the Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Strike
McIntosh argues that Michael's complaint violates Rule 8(a) and (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it is not "simple, concise, and direct." McIntosh further argues that Michael's allegations are "lengthy" and "verbose," "confusing, distracting, and unintelligible," and that they "contain conclusory legal statements and include references . . . to irrelevant case law from a myriad of jurisdictions." (Def.'s Mot. to Strike at 2). McIntosh now moves to strike Michael's complaint in its entirety on the ground that it is "unreasonably verbose, confusing, conclusory, argumentative, and needlessly complicated. . . ." (Id. at 3).
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to strike from a pleading any insufficient defense or any immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Courts generally disfavor motions to strike. Flanagan v. Wyndham Int'l, Inc., No. 2002-237, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24211, at *3 (D.V.I. Apr. 21, 2003) (noting that motions to strike are "a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purpose of justice."); Larsen v. Pennsylvania, 955 F. Supp. 1549, 1582 (M.D. Pa. 1997). To prevail on a motion to strike, the moving party must demonstrate that the challenged allegations are so unrelated to the plaintiff's claims as to be "unworthy of any consideration and that their presence in the pleadings will be prejudicial." Flanagan, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24211, at *3 (citing Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedures, Civil 2d § 1380).
"In considering a motion to strike the Court will deem as admitted all of the non-moving party's well-pleaded facts, draw all reasonable inferences in the pleader's favor and resolve all doubts in favor of denying the motion. Flanagan, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24211, at *3-4 ; Wailua Assocs. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 183 F.R.D. 550, 553-54 (D. Haw. 1998). "A motion to strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter is also viewed with disfavor as 'a time waster.'" Flanagan, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24211, at *4 (quoting Somerset Pharms., Inc. v. Kimball, 168 F.R.D. 69, 71 (M.D. Fl. 1996). "The Court will not strike such matter unless it bears no possible relation to the dispute or could confuse the issues." Id.; Government Guarantee Fund et al. v. Hyatt Corp., 166 F.R.D. 321, 324 (D.V.I. 1996); Delaware Health Care, Inc., v. MCD Holding Co., 893 F. Supp. 1279, 1291-92 (D. Del. 1995). "Mere redundancy, immateriality, impertinence or scandalousness is not sufficient to justify striking an allegation — the allegation must also be shown to be prejudicial to the moving party." Flanagan, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24211, at *4; see also Glasser v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 853 F. Supp. 852, 854 (D.V.I. 1994).
Michael's complaint is 39 pages long and contains 12 claims for relief. At times, the Complaint reads somewhat like a legal treatise. It is long, sets forth many bases for relief, and cites authority from several jurisdictions. It is also repetitive. However, this Court must accept all allegations in the Complaint as true and construe any inferences in Michael's favor. Moreover, the Court is mindful that courts roundly disfavor motions to strike, resorting to them only when a "drastic remedy" is required. McIntosh argues only that the allegations in Michael's complaint are long and confusing. McIntosh has not met her burden of showing that striking Michael's complaint is appropriate.
B. Motion for a More Definite Statement
McIntosh moves in the alternative for a more definite statement of Michael's complaint. McIntosh argues that the Complaint is ambiguous and that Michael should correct these ambiguities to comply with Rule 8 by filing a short and plain statement of his claim(s). (Def.'s Mot. to Strike at 4).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a pleading should contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and that "[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), (e). Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to move for a more definite statement "[i]f a pleading . . . is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e); see also Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publications, Inc., 370 F.2d 795, 798 (3d Cir. 1967). A Rule 12(e) "motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e).
"Consistent with Rule 8(a)'s liberal pleading requirements, courts are reluctant to compel a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e)." McQueen v. Woodstream Corp., No. 05-2068, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58119, at *22 (D.D.C. Aug. 10, 2007). "Mindful that all litigants are entitled to proper notice pleading under Rule 8(a), however, the court will grant relief pursuant to Rule 12(e) where the pleading is 'so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a respons[e].'" Id. at *23 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e)); see also Ekberg v. Pennington, No. 02-845, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13409, at *6 (E.D. La. July 19, 2002) (granting a Rule 12(e) motion where "the plaintiff's complaint pleads nothing but conclusions and provides no guidance to the defendants as to how to respond"); Bower v. Weisman, 639 F. Supp. 532, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (granting a Rule 12(e) motion because the plaintiff's claims lacked clarity and the defendant therefore could not effectively respond to the complaint); Saad v. Burns Int'l Sec. Servs., Inc., 456 F. Supp. 33, 36 (D.D.C. 1978) (finding that mere allegations do not suffice to state a claim and ordering the plaintiff to file a more definite statement).
The Complaint in this action is not as short as it could be. However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a plaintiff to make a complaint as concise as humanly possible. Under the Rules' liberal pleading standard, all that is required is that the plaintiff set forth allegations that are sufficiently understandable to reasonably permit the defendant to frame an answer. Again, McIntosh has not met her burden.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to strike is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the motion for a more definite statement is DENIED.