Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 03-2046-CM
March 31, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Defendant Bank One, Delaware, NA.'s Motion to Dismiss Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement of Plaintiff's Claims (Doc. 46). Defendant Bank One contends that plaintiff's complaint does not clearly delineate her claims against defendant. Defendant further asserts that plaintiff's apparent fraud claim is not plead with particularity as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Defendant therefore moves the court to dismiss plaintiff's case or else require plaintiff to amend her complaint to more specifically identify her claims.
I. Legal Standards
A party may move for a more definite statement of any pleading that is "so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Motions for a more definite statement are generally disfavored in light of liberal discovery available under the federal rules and are granted only when a party is unable to determine the issues requiring a response. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Thomas, 837 F. Supp. 354, 355 (D. Kan. 1993). A motion for more definite statement should not be granted merely because the pleading lacks detail; rather, the standard to be applied is whether the claims alleged are sufficiently specific to enable a responsive pleading in the form of a denial or admission.
When a complaint fails to plead all elements of the cause of action, fails to plead any facts supporting the elements of the cause of action, or states the claim in a vague or ambiguous manner, the court may dismiss the complaint. As an alternative to this harsh remedy, and pursuant to Rule 12(e), the court may order plaintiff's to file a more definite statement, re-pleading their claim in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.
II. Analysis
Defendant contends that plaintiff has failed to plead her fraud claim with the specificity required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) and should therefore be dismissed. In response, plaintiff explains that she is not bringing a fraud claim, but instead intended to plead a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. ("FCRA").
Based upon plaintiff's complaint, it is not clear that she was not pleading a fraud claim, nor is it clear that she was pleading a FCRA claim. Rather than dismissing plaintiff's case, however, the court orders plaintiff to amend her complaint and file a more definite statement of her FCRA claim such that defendant may file a responsive pleading.
Defendant also asserts that the remainder of plaintiff's claims are not discernible on the face of her complaint, making a response in the form of a denial or admission impossible. The court concurs. Particularly given plaintiff's response to defendant's argument about plaintiff's apparent fraud claim, the legal bases of plaintiff's claims against defendant are not clearly stated nor deducible from plaintiff's complaint. The court hereby orders plaintiff to file an amended complaint that specifically identifies plaintiff's claims in her case against defendants. The court further orders plaintiff to file her amended complaint within 11 days of this order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Bank One, Delaware, NA.'s Motion to Dismiss Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement of Plaintiff's Claims (Doc. 46) is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court orders plaintiff to file an amended complaint that specifies her claims against defendants within 11 days of this order .