Opinion
CIVIL ACTION 01-813.
April 24, 2002
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement filed on behalf of the defendant, BP Oil Company/Amoco. This matter was submitted on the briefs after the parties waived oral argument. The Court, having considered the Court record, the arguments of counsel, the law and applicable jurisprudence, is fully advised in the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
The plaintiff, Charmaine Perrilloux, filed a four paragraph complaint on March 28, 2001, pursuant to Title VII and 28 U.S.C. § 1328 and "all applicable law so that supplemental jurisdiction is pled." Complaint Paragraph 1. Plaintiff alleged that while she was employed by BP Oil Company, she was subjected to sex, gender and race based harassment and then retaliated against for complaining. Complaint Paragraph 2 and 3. In response, the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement on various grounds. The plaintiff did not file an opposition to said motion, but instead filed a First Amended and Supplemental Complaint with this Court. While this mooted out some of the arguments asserted by the defendant in its motion, in the Answer to the First Amended and Supplemental Complaint, defendant reasserted its motion with respect to two arguments.
Defendant argues first that while plaintiff names BP Oil Company/Amoco as a defendant, no such entity exists. Moreover, plaintiff neither contends that "Amoco" employed her nor does she assert any claims against "Amoco". BP Exploration Oil Inc. has identified itself as the employer of the plaintiff. As such, it is requested that Amoco be dismissed from the present lawsuit.
Secondly, defendant moves to dismiss any unidentified state law claims from this suit. In neither the Original nor First Amended and Supplemental Complaint has plaintiff identified any state law claims under which she purports to engender supplemental jurisdiction.
Law on Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6):
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") "is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted."Lowery v. Texas AM University System, 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997); Kaiser Aluminum Chem. Sales v. Avondale Shipyards, 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982). The complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all facts pleaded in the original complaint must be taken as true. Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir. 1980). A district court may not dismiss a complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Blackburn v. Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). The Fifth Circuit defines this strict standard as, "[t]he question therefore is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." Lowrey, 117 F.3d at 247, citing 5 Charles A. Wright Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1357, at 601 (1969).
Law on Motion for More Definite Statement pursuant to Rule 12(e):
FRCP 12(e) provides that where a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the Court may order a more definite statement. Motions for More Definite Statement are generally disfavored, discovery is the correct vehicle to obtain information necessary for trial. Erickson v. Hunter, 932 F. Supp. 1380 (M.D. Fla. 1996).
Plaintiff has alleged in Paragraph 1 of both the Original and First Amended and Supplemental Complaint that:
[t]his action is brought under Title VII and 28 U.S.C. § 1328. Venue in this district is proper because all acts complained of occurred in this district. These claims are also brought under all applicable law so that supplemental jurisdiction is pled.
It is the finding of this Court that this is insufficient to put the defendant on notice as to what state law claims may be asserted. As such, plaintiff will have twenty (20) days in which to file a supplemental complaint further delineating any state law claims which may be asserted herein.
In Paragraph 2 of plaintiffs Original Complaint, plaintiff submits that she was employed by BP Oil Company. In Paragraph 2 of the First Amended and Supplemental Complaint, plaintiff submits that she was employed "at the Alliance Refinery in Belle Chasse, La., at first owned by BP then by BP/Amoco. Defendant employs over 500 people. (BP/Amoco plant has since sold the Alliance Refinery to Tosco Refining Co., which sold it to Phillips (66).)" Thereafter, plaintiff sets forth the factual allegations with respect to the time period while she was employed by "BP". It has been submitted that BP Exploration Oil Inc. was identified as plaintiffs employer in the statement of position provided by the company to the EEOC. As such, the plaintiff is hereby directed to file a supplemental and amended pleading within twenty (20) days identifying the plaintiffs employer by the correct corporate name, or providing a more definite statement with respect to any claims asserted against Amoco.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement be and the same is hereby GRANTED with the respect to the alternative Motion for More Definite Statement, and DENIED with respect to the Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file a Supplemental and Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days with respect to the items discussed herein.