The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CATHERINE BROWN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 21-1844
MINYANGO TOKPAH ET AL. SECTION: “H”(1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Andrea Stewart’s Motion for a More
Definite Statement (Doc. 30) and Defendant Anti Fraud Warriors, LLC’s
Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 34). For the following reasons,
these Motions are GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this suit against Minyango Tokpah, Andrea Stewart, and
others (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that each had engaged to some
degree in stalking, harassing, threatening, attacking, intimidating, or
defaming her through online activity.1 Generally, Plaintiff claims that
Defendants are individuals using online platforms like YouTube to engage in
“cyber and online harassment” that began around October 1, 2020 and has
1 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges “cyber stalking, harassment, defamation, threats to
her life and safety, and other cyber and online harassment, such crimes and civil tortuous
[sic] acts committed by those defendants as described below.” Doc. 7 at 1.
1
persisted since.2 Plaintiff, a Delaware domiciliary at the time of filing this case,
advances that she suffered much of this harassment while residing part time
in Louisiana. Defendants are allegedly domiciled in states other than Delaware
and Louisiana.3 Plaintiff’s briefing and representations to the Court suggest
that her legal claims are defamation and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.4 Below are the facts from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint that
are relevant to the instant motions.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Anti Fraud Warriors, LLC (“AFW”) is a
California limited liability corporation that pays individuals known as “Good
Guys” to harass people over the internet, and Plaintiff is one of their targets.5
More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that AFW and its “Good Guys” are
opponents of “Pan African Activist, Dr. Umar Johnson” because they believe
he “is a scammer or some type of fraudulent enemy of the Black community.”6
AFW allegedly claims that Plaintiff is an affiliate of Dr. Johnson, and so their
vitriol against him extends to her, thereby subjecting her to harassment and
defamation.7
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Andrea Stewart is a California resident
who runs several YouTube channels and who has falsely claimed in online
2 Doc. 7 at 10.
3 Id. at 4–7. Plaintiff also alleges an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs. Id. at 4.
4 See Doc. 7; Doc. 24 at 49.
5 Plaintiff named AFW as a defendant in her initial Complaint, but failed to allege the
citizenship of its members for diversity purposes. Her First Amended Complaint omits AFW
from the list of defendants, but elsewhere characterizes the entity as such. See infra text
accompanying notes 23–24. The Court addresses this inconsistency below.
6 Doc. 7 at 12.
7 Id. at 12–13.
2
broadcasts that Plaintiff filed fraudulent police reports against various Black
individuals, including Ms. Stewart herself.8 Plaintiff also alleges that Ms.
Stewart has made other defamatory comments on her channels and elsewhere,
including that Plaintiff falsely told the police Ms. Stewart is an Aryan who is
harassing others, that Plaintiff is guilty of criminal charges, and that Plaintiff
is a “menace to mankind.”9
Now before the Court is AFW and Ms. Stewart’s Motions for a More
Definite Statement.10 AFW and Ms. Stewart both claim that Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint is “so vague and ambiguous” that they “cannot reasonably
prepare a response” to it unless it is amended and clarified in various ways.11
In her response, Plaintiff states that “in the coming weeks” she intends to
amend her First Amended Complaint so as to add additional defendants and
“clarify specific causes of actions against the several defendants.”12
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court will grant a motion for a more definite statement under
Rule 12(e) when the challenged pleading “is so vague or ambiguous that the
[moving] party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”13 The moving party
“must point out the defects complained of and the details desired.”14
8 Id. at 25–26.
9 Id. at 26–28.
10 See Docs. 30, 34.
11 Doc. 30 at 1, Doc. 34 at 1.
12 See Docs. 39 at 1, 40 at 1.
13 FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e).
14 Id.
3
“When evaluating a motion for a more definite statement, the Court
must assess the complaint in light of the minimal pleading requirements of
Rule 8.”15 Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”16 “Specific
facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice
of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”17 In light of the
liberal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a), Rule 12(e) motions are
disfavored.18 Motions for a more definite statement are generally granted only
when the complaint is “so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be
unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to
answer it.”19 This Court “has considerable discretion in deciding whether to
grant a Rule 12(e) motion.”20
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Although Rule 12(e) motions are disfavored, the Court finds them
appropriate here, and given Plaintiff’s admitted intention to amend her First
Amended Complaint, she appears to agree. As one court granting a 12(e)
15 Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. McGriff, Siebels & Williams, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 632, 633 (E.D. La.
2006).
16 FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
17 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
18 JNP Enters., LLC v. Patterson Structural Moving & Shoring, LLC, No. 13-4684, 2014 WL
31650, at *1–2 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2014) (citing Mitchell v. E–Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126,
132 (5th Cir. 1959); Who Dat Yat Chat, LLC v. Who Dat, Inc., No. 10–1333, 2012 WL 2087439,
at *6 (E.D. La. June 8, 2012)).
19 Phillips v. ABB Combustion Eng’g, Inc., No. 13–594, 2013 WL 3155224, at *2 (E.D. La.
June 19, 2013).
20 Murungi v. Tex. Guaranteed, 646 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (E.D. La. 2009).
4
motion explained, “Plaintiff makes vague allegations in her Complaint and
does not connect a large majority of those allegations with any action . . . by
Defendants. Further, some of Plaintiff’s claims, . . . are unclear as to whom
they are being asserted against.”21 Here, Plaintiff nowhere lays out her
“claims . . . in numbered paragraphs” as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 10(b). Plaintiff’s factual allegations are broken down into
numbered paragraphs, but her claims are not.22 Even reading the First
Amended Complaint as implicitly asserting claims like intentional infliction
of emotional distress, it is not clear whether Plaintiff asserts all of her
claims against all Defendants or otherwise.
Further, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is unclear as to who is
being sued. For example, Plaintiff first identifies AFW as one of many
“actors . . . specifically not named here as defendants as their respective
individual identities are unknown, and including them as actual defendants,
particularly any LLC, may or may not include non-diverse defendants.”23 Yet
later Plaintiff alleges that the AFW “[is] actually a limited liability corporation
named defendant herein.”24 These contradictions, as well as the deficiencies
mentioned above, make Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint so vague and
ambiguous that a party like AFW cannot reasonably respond.
21 Akmal v. Centerstance, Inc. No. 11–5378 , 2013 WL 1148841, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19,
2013).
22 The Court had to clarify at Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction hearing what exactly her
claims are. See Doc. 24 at 49.
23 Doc. 7 at 7–8.
24 Id. at 11.
5
In addition to ordering a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), the
Court instructs Plaintiff to clarify the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The
First Amended Complaint asserts complete diversity because Plaintiff was
allegedly domiciled in Delaware at the time of filing her Complaint, and all
Defendants were domiciled elsewhere at that time. There is some internal
tension between Plaintiff’s allegation that she suffered much of the harm
alleged in this case in Louisiana over the past 14 months and her allegation
that she was domiciled in Delaware when filing her Complaint. Another
concern is that at the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction,
she stated that Defendant Tanisha Wright lives in Delaware.25 Moreover,
Plaintiff has failed to allege the citizenship of the members of AFW for
diversity purposes. The citizenship of an LLC like AFW is determined by the
citizenship of all of its members for diversity jurisdiction.26 “[F]ederal courts
are duty-bound to examine the basis of subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte . . . .”27
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Andrea Stewart’s
Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 30) and Defendant Anti Fraud
Warriors, LLC’s Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 34) are
GRANTED. Plaintiff is given two weeks from the date of this Order to amend
her First Amended Complaint so as to comply with Federal Rules of Civil
25 See Doc. 24 at 21.
26 See Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008).
27 Union Planters Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2004).
6
Procedure 8 and 10. This is a low bar and only requires setting out the
following: (1) which parties Plaintiff is suing, (2) which legal claims she is
asserting and against which parties she is asserting them, (8) the factual
grounds out of which those claims arise, and (4) the relief that she seeks.28 As
explained above, Plaintiff should also clarify the Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction over this case.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 8th day of April, 2022.
g TRICHE Lh 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28 See, e.g., Browder v. XTO Energy Inc., No. 5:11-CV—01428, 2012 WL 566942, at *2 (W.D.
La. Feb. 19, 2012) (“Plaintiffs’ statement should be short and should clearly specify the
following: 1) the properties and minerals involved; 2) the rights of the Plaintiffs in the
properties and minerals; 3) the ways in which both XTO and Anadarko have allegedly
interfered with those rights; and 4) the relief which the Plaintiffs seek.”).