MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CATHERINE D. PERRY, District Judge.

This recently removed asbestos case is before me on my review of the file. Defendant Boeing Company asserts an independent right to removal under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), based on allegations that decedent Ronald Smith, Sr. was exposed to asbestos from military aircraft while employed at Boeing. Defendant's right to removal has not been challenged by a motion a remand, but the time for doing so has not yet expired.

Numerous motions to dismiss to the petition were filed in state court by various defendants. As a first amended petition was filed in state court, these motions are moot and will be denied as such.1 I have also reviewed the numerous motions to dismiss the amended petition filed in state court by various defendants. These are all bare bones motions, unsupported by any legal memoranda. For the most part, these motions all seek dismissal of part or all of plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim. In the alternative, many of these motions also seek a more definite statement of the claims against them. I have reviewed plaintiff's complaint in light of the governing federal standards,2 and I find that plaintiff's complaint adequately states claims against the defendants seeking dismissal. I also find that plaintiff is not required to file a more definite statement of her claims against these defendants, as I do not find the complaint so unintelligible, vague, or ambiguous such that the defendants cannot reasonably frame a response. To the extent other defendants move for summary judgment, the motions are denied without prejudice to being refiled in accordance with federal and local rules after I have set a schedule in this case. I warn all parties, however, that I will not tolerate generic, baseless motion practice designed to delay or to multiply the proceedings, so any motion must accord with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the local rules of this court, and counsel's attendant ethical obligations to this Court.

Finally, defendant Pneumo Abex has filed a motion asking this Court to apply Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(c)(1)(B), which provides that, in cases involving a large number of defendants, "any crossclaim, counterclaim, avoidance, or affirmative defense in those pleadings and replies to them will be treated as denied or avoided by all other parties." Given the number of defendants and the voluminous size of the state court file, I believe it is appropriate to grant this motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all pending motions to dismiss the petition [#6-#20] and the motion to transfer venue [#21] are denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions to dismiss the amended petition [#33, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #42, #49] are denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions for summary judgment [#49, #51, #52, #53, #54, #55, #56, #57, #58, #59, #60, #61, #62] are denied without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for institution of denials under Federal Rule 5(c)(1)(B) [#66] is granted.