Davey Tree Expert Company v. Puerto Rico Disaster Recovery, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY, ) CASE NO.: 5:23-cv-00961

)

Plaintiff, )

) JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

v. )

)

PUERTO RICO DISASTER ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND

RECOVERY, LLC, ) ORDER

) (Resolving Docs. 10, 11 and 12)

Defendant. )

This matter comes before the Court on Puerto Rico Disaster Recovery, LLC’s

(“Defendant”) Motion for a More Definite Statement. Doc. 10. The Davey Tree Expert Company

(“Plaintiff”) filed a response in opposition. Doc. 11. Defendant filed an additional reply in support.

Doc. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED. Defendant is permitted 14 days from

the entry of this order to file its response to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff filed the Complaint (Doc. 1) (the “Complaint”), initiating this civil action, wherein

Plaintiff discusses its business relationship with Defendant, including subcontracts on four

projects, detailed by Subcontract Service Agreements (the “Service Agreements”) which are the

subject of this dispute. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 1-2. The Complaint lists the Service Agreements as the: A)

“Green Mountain Power Project,” B) “New Hampshire Electric Cooperative Project,” C)

“Appalachian Power Company Project,” and D) “Knoxville Utilities Board Project” and details

alleged factual circumstances and individual damages incurred relating to each. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 12-33.

Last, Plaintiff raises its “Count One (Breach of Contract),” alleging Defendant breached the terms

of each of the Service Agreements by “failing to satisfactorily perform the agreed services…in

compliance with the terms…causing property damage…” and noting a total $700,000 in

compensatory damages. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 42-44.

Defendant then filed this Motion for a More Definite Statement (the “Motion”) (Doc. 10)

pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Federal Rules”), wherein it

alleges the Complaint violates Federal Rule 10(b) by providing a singular count for breach of

contract that incorporates all four Service Agreements. Doc. 10, pp. 4-6. Defendant indicates this

type of pleading is an improper “shotgun pleading,” the Complaint is unclear and ambiguous, and

it impedes Defendant’s ability to proceed with defenses and discovery. Doc. 10, pp. 4-6. Plaintiff

filed the Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Puerto Rico Disaster Recovery, LLC’s Motion

for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 11) wherein it notes 1) that each of the Service Agreements

detailed a similar scope of work, highlighting the subheadings of the Complaint that provided

individual descriptions of each, and 2) the exhibits attached to the Complaint, containing copies of

each of the alleged breached Service Agreements. Doc. 11, pp. 1-2. Plaintiff argues that the

Complaint is not an improper “shotgun pleading” because the singular count for breach of contract

and detail surrounding each of the Service Agreements should provide clarity to the extent

Defendant can formulate a response. Doc. 11, pp. 5-7. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant improperly

relies on Federal Rule 10(b), noting an alleged incorrect interpretation and recitation of same.1

Doc. 11, p. 6. Last, Defendant filed its Reply in Support of Defendant Puerto Rico Disaster

Recovery, LLC’s Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 12) (the “Reply”), indicating it only

takes issue with paragraphs 34 to 44 of the Complaint as it combines four separate transactions

1 Plaintiff directs the Court’s attention to Defendant’s partial quote of Federal Rule 10(b), wherein it indicates

Rule 10(b) states “to ‘promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence…must be

stated in a separate count.’” Doc. 10, p. 4.

into one count of breach of contract, rendering Defendant unable to reasonably answer and clearly

present the issues. Doc. 12, p. 2.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule 12(e) provides “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The burden is on the movant to demonstrate

the pleading is too vague or ambiguous to permit a response by identifying the deficiencies, listing

the details they seek, and asserting an inability to frame a response. Clark v. Lafayette Place Lofts,

No. 14-12519, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197970, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2015). Courts should

consider the pleadings liberally, analyzing the defendant’s familiarity with the claims and whether

the complaint is intelligible, apprising defendants of the facts and authority relied on to support

the claim(s). Id. at *4. Additionally, “[f]ederal courts generally disfavor motions for more definite

statements.” Id. at *3 (citing Fed. Ins. Co. v. Webne, 513 F. Supp.2d 921, 924 (N.D. Ohio 2007)).

Federal Rule 10(b) directs parties to state their claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs

limited, as far as practicable, to a single set of circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). It further

provides “[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or

occurrence [] must be stated in a separate count [].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). While motions for a

more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule 12(e) generally assert deficiencies related to

Federal Rule 8, Rule 12(e) is also the appropriate vehicle where the pleading allegedly violates

Rule 10(b). Loggins v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:22-cv-02026-TLP-tmp, 2022 WL 2161521,

at *3 (W.D. Tenn. June 15, 2022). Separate counts have been required where multiple claims are

asserted, the claims arise out of separate transactions or occurrences, and where they will facilitate

clear presentation of the issues to provide for informed pretrial proceedings. Bautista v. Los

Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). It is, for example, improper for plaintiffs to

include several causes of action in one sentence. See Lee v. Ohio Educ. Ass’n, 951 F.3d 386, 392-

93 (6th Cir. 2020) (discussing plaintiff’s inclusion of seven state-law causes of action in one

sentence and failure to connect facts or events to the causes of action as problematic and deficient);

see also In re Jackson (Mayo v. Jackson), No. 20-50811, 2020 WL 7634502, at *4 (Bankr. E.D.

Ky. Dec. 18, 2020). A complaint that combines several counts against multiple defendants, without

an indication of which cause of action relates to which party, is also improper under Federal Rule

10(b). See Loggins, 2022 WL 2161521, at *3 (noting improper “shotgun pleading” generally arises

in disputes involving multiple defendants because parties do not receive notice of who is liable for

each count). Last, a defendant’s claim that separate counts are required to determine their defenses

is not a proper reason for granting a motion for more definite statement. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

v. Gleen L. Martin Co., 9 F.R.D. 551, 553 (N.D. Ohio 1949).

III. ANALYSIS

In its Motion and Reply (Docs. 10 and 12), Defendant generally attempts to satisfy its

burden of demonstrating that the Complaint is vague and ambiguous by arguing that the singular

breach of contract action improperly incorporates all four of the Service Agreements, leaving it

unable to reasonably formulate a response as there may be separate defenses and/or counterclaims

with respect to each underlying Service Agreement. Defendant further relies on Federal Rule 10(b)

to assert that the one count may not combine separate transactions or occurrences.

First, the Court finds the Complaint is intelligible, using plain language and structured

headings for an introduction, the parties involved, the four Service Agreements (each involving its

own factual background and claim for damages), and the allegation (Count One) that Defendant

breached each of the Service Agreements. See Clark v. Lafayette Place Lofts, No. 14-12519, 2015

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197970, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2015). The Complaint is, therefore, not so

vague or ambiguous that a response cannot reasonably be prepared.

Next, the Court finds that the Complaint does not violate Federal Rule 10(b) because it is

clear as outlined. Regardless of whether each Service Agreement should be considered a separate

transaction or occurrence, Plaintiff 1) provides a description of each Service Agreement and the

facts relating to each alleged breach before incorporating all into one breach of contract cause of

action, and 2) attaches each Service Agreement as an exhibit. Doc. 1; see Lee v. Ohio Educ. Ass’n,

951 F.3d 386, 392-93 (6th Cir. 2020). The structure of the Complaint makes it clear to this Court

that the facts detailed in each of the subheadings relate to the applicable and separate underlying

Service Agreements, and all Service Agreements are connected to one type of action (breach of

contract) against one defendant (Puerto Rico Disaster Recovery, LLC). See Lee, 951 F.3d at 392-

93, Loggins v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 2:22-cv-02026-TLP-tmp, 2022 WL 2161521,

at *3 (W.D. Tenn. June 15, 2022). Therefore, the Complaint does not constitute an improper

“shotgun pleading,” requiring a separation of counts for informed pretrial proceedings. See

Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). While Plaintiff may have

chosen to outline four separate causes of action relating to the alleged breach of each Service

Agreement, Defendant’s argument that it cannot neatly organize defenses and counterclaims

relating to a single count (see Doc. 10 at p. 6) is not a sufficient reason to grant this Motion. See

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Gleen L. Martin Co., 9 F.R.D. 551, 553 (N.D. Ohio 1949).

Accordingly, the Court finds the Complaint complies with Federal Rule 10(b) and

Defendant’s Motion is therefore DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant Puerto Rico Disaster Recovery, LLC’s Motion for

a More Definite Statement (Doc. 10) is DENIED. Defendant is provided 14 days to file a response

to Plaintiff Davey Tree Expert Company’s Complaint (Doc. 1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 6, 2023 /s/ Judge John R. Adams

DATE JOHN R. ADAMS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE