The opinion
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ST JOSEPH MEDICAL CLINIC AMC CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 22-4521
BANKERS INSURANCE CO. SECTION: “G”(2)
ORDER
This litigation arises out of Plaintiff St. Joseph Medical Clinic AMC’s (“Plaintiff”) claim
for damages sustained to its property during Hurricane Ida. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion
to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”1 In the instant motion, Defendant moves the Court to dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims for bad faith and fraud pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or
alternatively order Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement.2 In response, Plaintiff states that
it does not bring a claim for fraud in the Complaint, but only brings causes of action for breach of
contract and bad faith.3 Accordingly, the motion is moot to the extent Defendant seeks dismissal
of Plaintiff’s fraud claim.
However, Plaintiff does bring statutory bad faith insurance claims pursuant to Louisiana
Revised Statute §§ 22:1892 and 22:1973. Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege bad faith
with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).4 Pursuant to Rule 9(b), “[i]n
1 Rec. Doc. 6.
2 See Rec. Doc. 6 at 1. Although Plaintiff alternatively moves for a more definite statement under Rule
12(b)(6), the Court construes this request as a 12(e) motion for a more definite statement; see also 5C Fed. Prac. &
Proc. Civ. § 1376 (3d ed.) (“A number of federal courts sometimes have found it necessary to convert erroneously
made Rule 12(b)(6) motions into Rule 12(e) motions.”).
3 Rec. Doc. 9 at 4.
4 Rec. Doc. 6-2 at 4–5.
or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a persons’ mind may be alleged
generally.”5 Defendant confuses an allegation of fraud with an allegation of bad faith. Plaintiff
does not bring a claim for fraud or mistake, and thus need not state with particularity the
circumstances constituting its claims. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is denied to the extent it
seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s bad faith claims.
Finally, Defendant also asks that the Court order Plaintiff to provide a more definite
statement. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) entitles a party to a more definite statement when
a portion of a pleading “is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to
frame a responsive pleading.”6 The motion must state the defects in the pleading and the details
desired.7 Defendant does not argue that the Complaint is ambiguous beyond the issues already
addressed. Thus, Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement is denied.8 Further, the Court
finds that the Complaint is not so vague or ambiguous that Defendant cannot frame a responsive
pleading. Accordingly,
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). See Cole v. JEBF Holdings, LLC, No. 14-0298, 2014 WL 6327088, at *2 (E.D. La.
Nov. 13, 2014) (Brown, J.).
7 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
8 To the extent that Defendant asks the Court to strike paragraphs from the Complaint, a motion pursuant
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or 12(e) is not the appropriate method for requesting such relief.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion? is MOOT IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. The motion is MOOT to the extent it seeks dismissal of a fraud claim, as
Plaintiff makes clear that it is not bringing a fraud claim. The motion is DENIED in all other
respects.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 24 day of February, 2023.
NANNETTE J jel BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
° Rec. Doc. 6.