BISMARCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 v. SYKES ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, 6:15-cv-6108. (2016)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20160422b13
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiffs have filed a Response. (ECF No. 9). Defendant has filed a Reply. (ECF No. 13). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's claims in the Amended and Substituted Complaint are so vague and ambiguous that Defendant cannot reasonably prepare a response. Defendant requests a more definite statement of the Amended and Substituted Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the F
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiffs have filed a Response. (ECF No. 9). Defendant has filed a Reply. (ECF No. 13). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's claims in the Amended and Substituted Complaint are so vague and ambiguous that Defendant cannot reasonably prepare a response. Defendant requests a more definite statement of the Amended and Substituted Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Fe..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiffs have filed a Response. (ECF No. 9). Defendant has filed a Reply. (ECF No. 13).
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's claims in the Amended and Substituted Complaint are so vague and ambiguous that Defendant cannot reasonably prepare a response. Defendant requests a more definite statement of the Amended and Substituted Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' Amended and Substituted Complaint is not so vague or convoluted as to be unintelligible, and Defendant can adequately prepare a response.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
