Opinion
In a removed diversity of citizenship action to recover damages for the wrongful death of plaintiffs' decedent from a motor vehicle accident, defendant moved the court to require plaintiffs to designate, by name and relationship, the next of kin of the decedent. The District Court, Neese, J., held that the motion would be denied, since the details of plaintiffs' claim were available to defendant through utilization of pretrial discovery techniques, and since, in a situation where a claim meets the requirements of rule 8(a)(2), the court will not require plaintiffs to make a more definite statement in their complaint.
Motion denied.
Max E. Wilson, Wilson & Wilson, Mountain City, Tenn., for plaintiffs.
Edwin L. Treadway, and William C. Bovender, Hunter, Smith, Davis, Norris, Treadway & Hadden, Kingsport, Tenn., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
NEESE, District Judge.
This is a removed diversity of citizenship action to recover money damages for the wrongful death of the plaintiffs' decedent from a motor vehicle accident. 28 U.S.C. ss 1332(a)(1), (c); 1441(a). The defendant moved the Court to require the plaintiffs ‘ * * * to designate, by name and relationship, the next of kin of * * *’ such decedent. Rule 12(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion lacks merit and hereby is DENIED.
The details of the plaintiffs' claim are available to the defendant through the utilization of the pretrial discovery techniques, Rules 26-37, inclusive, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Where, as here, a claim meets the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will not require the plaintiffs to make a more definite statement in their complaint. Dennis v. Begley Drug Company of Tennessee, Inc., D.C.Tenn. (1971), 53 F.R.D. 608, 609(3); State of Tennessee ex rel. Davis v. Hartman, D.C.Tenn. (1969), 306 F.Supp. 610, 612(3, 4). Furthermore, such a motion is not to be used to pave the way for a motion to dismiss. Jones v. Kreminski, D.C.Conn. (1975), 404 F.Supp. 667, 670(3); Lodge 743, Internat'l Ass'n of Mach. v. United Aircraft Corp., D.C.Conn. (s962), 30 F.R.D. 142, 145(1); Leon v. Hotel and Club Employees Union Local 6, D.C.N.Y. (1960), 26 F.R.D. 158, 159(6).