ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND VACATING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

[Dkt. Nos. 26, 28]

DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.

Presently before the Court are Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement (dkt. no. 26), and Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' Motion (dkt. no. 28). After reviewing the Parties' submissions, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion and VACATES as moot Plaintiff's Motion.

Defendants' Motion claims that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to "plead basic facts about the contract or the breach," including by "not identify[ing] any specific document that might constitute a contract." (Dkt. no. 26, at 1.) Defendants claim that Plaintiff's theory of liability is unclear in the Complaint and so Defendants cannot properly respond to the Complaint. (Id. at 4.) Defendants say Plaintiff might be claiming breach of a loan application, or perhaps an approved loan application, or even some other, unspecified communications; it is unclear to Defendants based on the allegations in the Complaint. (Id. at 4-5.)

In response, Plaintiff alleged that he lacked the evidence needed to properly answer Defendants' Motion, which he believed was in Defendants' possession. (Dkt. no. 28, at 2.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants had thus far declined Plaintiff's requests for the needed evidence — the loan application "executed and/or approved by the parties and at issue in this case." (Id.) Plaintiff asks this Court to stay Defendants' Motion and allow limited discovery for the purpose of obtaining the underlying loan application. (Id. at 4.)

On January 19, 2016, Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. (Dkt. no. 32.) Defendants argue against early discovery, stating that they provided Plaintiff with the loan application that day. (Id. at 2; Saelao Decl., Dkt. no. 32-1, at 1.) Defendants do not otherwise oppose Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement. (Id.)

The Court denies Defendants' Motion because, while the Complaint may be sparse on details of exactly what contractual provision is alleged to be breached, the essential elements of a breach of contract are all pled with sufficient facts given the information available to Plaintiff at this time.

The Court, however, declines Plaintiff's request for limited discovery as to the loan application. Normal discovery will proceed following the parties' Rule 26 meeting. Plaintiff then will receive the needed evidence, if any, to make a more definite statement. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion. (Dkt. no. 26.) The Court VACATES as moot Plaintiff's Motion. (Dkt. no. 28.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.