Civil Action No. 07-2154 (RCL) | D.D.C. | Nov 19, 2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is defendant L-3’s motion [28] to strike the plaintiffs complaint and to dismiss the action. The plaintiff has also moved [34] to add Northrop Grumman as a defendant. Upon consideration of the motion [28], the opposition [33], the reply [36], the surreply [42], the entire record herein, and applicable law, the Court will GRANT the defendant’s motion and dismiss the action with prejudice. The Court will DENY plaintiffs motion to add Northrop Grumman as a defendant.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Shallal filed a complaint alleging seven separate counts and seeking relief under various laws, statutes, and treaties on November 29, 2007. Defendant L-3 filed a motion for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) on February 6, 2008.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiffs August 3, 2008 filing did not Cure the Defects in the Complaint
As noted above, this Court has already held that the plaintiffs original complaint was deficient in many key respects. (See
The defendant argues that the plaintiffs response to the motion for a more definite statement did not comply with Rule 12(e) on its face because the response was not an amended pleading. (Mot. to Dismiss at 4.) Certainly, other federal courts have held that an amended pleading is required. E.g., Sef-ton v. Jew, 204 F.R.D. 104" court="W.D. Tex." date_filed="2000-12-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/sefton-v-jew-8732681?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8732681">204 F.R.D. 104, 106 (W.D.Tex. 2000); F.D.I.C. v. Reiner, 144 F.R.D. 599" court="D. Me." date_filed="1992-12-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/federal-deposit-insurance-v-reiner-9033990?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9033990">144 F.R.D. 599, 600 (D.Me.1992). It appears that no court in the D.C. Circuit has ruled on this issue, however, and Rule 12 does not explicitly require an amended pleading.
Shallal’s “response” and the attached affidavit fail to clarify the pleading. The “affidavit,” which does not contain an original signature, is in the form of a bullet-point outline and lists many alleged events that the plaintiff was involved in but does not make specific, comprehensible claims against the defendant. A complaint should be a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ and make “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(1) & 8(b)(2). A pleading should also state a party’s claims in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). In this case, the plaintiffs complaint and supplemental response is neither short, plain, nor does it specify what relief the plaintiff seeks as compensation for much of the alleged wrongdoing. In addition, the response does not set out the plaintiffs claims in numbered paragraphs. The “response” is no more clear than the plaintiffs original complaint.
As a result of the plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court’s order and file a responsive pleading, the defendant argues that the Court should strike the pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). If the “pleading to be stricken is the complaint, the sanction has the effect of a dismissal of the action.” Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 5C Federal Practice & Procedure § 1379 (2008). The plaintiff argues, however, that because he subsequently filed an amended complaint in response to the motion to strike and dismiss, the defendant’s motion to strike the original complaint and response is now moot. Defendant is correct that although the general rule is that a plaintiff may file an amended pleading once as a matter of right, there is some authority for striking a complaint and dismissing an action as a sanction for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), even after the plaintiff has filed an amended pleading. Thompson v. Johnson,
B. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint Does not Comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Plaintiffs amended complaint has ballooned to fifty-six pages but is no more corn-
C. Plaintiffs Repeated Disregard for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Justifies Striking the Complaint and Dismissing the Action
The defendant has moved for the Court to strike the plaintiffs complaint and dismiss the action. The Court’s authority to take this action is explicit from the very language of Rule 12(e) (“If the court orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 10 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.”). See also Thompson v. Johnson, 253 F.2d 43" court="D.C. Cir." date_filed="1958-02-27" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/wesley-hall-jr-v-laura-a-killingsworth-and-yeolen-s-thomas-244457?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="244457">253 F.2d 43 (D.C.Cir.1958); Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 5C Federal Practice & Procedure § 1379 (2008). The Court recognizes that striking a complaint and dismissing the action for failure to comply with a court order and the Federal Rules is a somewhat unusual remedy. However, the Court granted the defendant’s motion for a more definite statement on July 23, 2008. Since that time, the plaintiff has made two attempts to file a coherent complaint. Taking into account the original complaint, the plaintiff has now had three chances to file an intelligible claim and has failed to do so. The plaintiff does not appear to be getting any closer to stating a valid claim that could require a response from a defendant or withstand a motion for a more definite statement. The Rule 12(e) remedy of striking the complaint is not toothless and does not require the Court to wait in perpetuity and give the plaintiff an infinite number of chances to file an actionable claim. Thus, because the plaintiff has been given multiple opportunities to state a coherent claim and has failed to do so, has failed to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has failed to comply with court
Finally, the plaintiff has moved to add Northrop Grumman as a defendant in this case. (Docket entry 34.) That motion will be denied because the only claims against Northrop Grumman are the claims relating to violations of Iraqi and Arab labor code and treaty laws. (Am.Compl.H 5.) As discussed above, the claims based on the Iraqi labor code are nonsensical, do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it is unclear how these violations, if true, would entitle plaintiff to relief in United States courts.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Shallal has failed to comply with the Court’s order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure of 12(e) for a more definite statement. The plaintiffs “response” and amended complaint are unintelligible, do not comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules,
A separate order shall issue this date.
SO ORDERED.
. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) states: "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 a 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 10 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."
. Plaintiff’s counsel is currently suspended by the D.C. Circuit. (Ex. to Def.'s Reply.) He has already served his suspension with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for the same infraction and as a result was allowed to file documents in this case.
. The complaint and amended complaint also fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
. Whether or not it is required, the Court agrees that a “unitary pleading capable of standing alone” is preferable to two separate documents, because separate documents require the Court and opposing counsel “to be beset with uncertainties and ambiguities as to how the provisions of the two documents are intended to mesh.” Reiner, 144 F.R.D. 599" court="D. Me." date_filed="1992-12-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/federal-deposit-insurance-v-reiner-9033990?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9033990">144 F.R.D. at 600 (D.Me.1992).
. In Thompson, the D.C. Circuit was presented with circumstances similar to the circumstances presented in this case. By court order, the plaintiffs were given twenty days to file a more definite complaint. The plaintiffs did not comply with the court’s order but did file an amended complaint two months later. After the amended complaint was filed, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint because of their failure to comply with the Court’s earlier order. The D.C. Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, held that there was "no error in the disposition of the case.” 253 F.2d 43" court="D.C. Cir." date_filed="1958-02-27" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/wesley-hall-jr-v-laura-a-killingsworth-and-yeolen-s-thomas-244457?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="244457">253 F.2d 43 (D.C.Cir.1958).
. The Court will not discuss every claim alleged in plaintiffs complaint because the complaint fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is not the Court’s job to wade through pages of incoherent gobbledy-gook in search of a single claim that may have merit. The plaintiff's third attempt at complying with the Federal Rules was wildly unsuccessful, indicating that he will never be able to make out a coherent claim which would entitle him to relief.
. Rule 23.1(b) requires a plaintiff to file a motion for class action certification within 90 days of filing the complaint. Plaintiff's complaint was filed 11/29/2007 and the time for class action certification has long since passed.
. Shallal inserts voluminous provisions from the Iraqi labor code, another example of not complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d).
. Shallal asserts that “Titan interfered with Shal-lal’s concurrent contractual relationship with Northrop Grumman by terminating him while his paperwork was still pending.” (Am. Compl.11148.)
. Alternatively, because the defendant’s motion is both a motion to strike and to dismiss, the Court could characterize the motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. Indeed, the plaintiff's amended complaint could be dismissed on this basis. Even accepting the plaintiff's allegations as true, as is required at the motion to dismiss stage, the plaintiff has failed to plead "facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. 8(d)(1) and 12(e).