MICHAELS v. ALEXANDRA, 12-219E. (2013)
Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20130712b22
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MAURICE B. COHILL, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs "Motion for More Definite Statement Rule 12(e)(g)" [ECF #41]. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) states: (e) Motion for a More Definite Statement. A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MAURICE B. COHILL, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs "Motion for More Definite Statement Rule 12(e)(g)" [ECF #41]. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) states: (e) Motion for a More Definite Statement. A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the d..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MAURICE B. COHILL, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs "Motion for More Definite Statement Rule 12(e)(g)" [ECF #41].
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) states:
(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement. A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the court orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other appropriate order.
Id. To date, Defendants have not filed "a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed."
Id. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion must be denied as being premature.
AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2013, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs "Motion for More Definite Statement Rule 12(e)(g)" [ECF #41] is DENIED without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
