United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge.
I. Introduction and Procedural History
Plaintiff Edward Stone ("Mr. Stone") initiated this action against Defendant URS Energy & Construction, Inc. ("URS"),  in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, on November 12, 2014. (Doc. 1-1 at 4). Mr. Stone filed a second complaint in state court on December 11, 2014. (Id. at 17-21). URS removed the lawsuit to federal court on January 21, 2015, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 1; id. at 3 ¶ 6) and, on January 28, 2015, filed a Motion for More Definite Statement. (Doc. 4).
On February 20, 2015, Mr. Stone filed an Amendment to Complaint so as To More Properly Identify Defendant (Doc. 7) (the "First Amendment"). Within this document, Mr. Stone identified URS as the proper party defendant and "re-allege[d] each and every material averment of plaintiff's original complaint as if set out herein against defendant URS Energy & Construction, Inc." (Doc. 7 at 1 ¶ 2).
On February 24, 2015, the court ordered Mr. Stone to file a more definite statement of his claims. (Doc. 9). In response to this order, Mr. Stone filed an Amendment to Complaint (Doc. 10) (the "Second Amendment") on March 2, 2015.
Pending before the court is URS's Renewed Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 11) (the "Renewed Motion") filed on March 19, 2015. After obtaining an extension of time, Mr. Stone, on April 14, 2015, filed both a response (Doc. 16) to the Renewed Motion and an Amendment To Complaint (Doc. 17) (the "Third Amendment"). Against this backdrop, the Renewed Motion is now ready for disposition and, for the reasons explained below, is GRANTED.
II. Rule 12(e) Standard
Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
(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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
As the former Fifth Circuit has explained the standard on motions for a more definite statement:
The motion for more definite statement, on the other hand, involves, within the applicable standards of that rule, the exercise of that sound and considered discretion committed unavoidably and properly to the Trial Judge as he presides over the continuous process of adjudication from commencement of the litigation through pleadings, pretrial discovery, trial, submission and decision.
Under 12(e) the Court must determine whether the complaint is such that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.'But the fact that a careful Judge, in the exercise of that wise discretion controlled by the prescribed principles of that rule, might so conclude does not permit him to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. It may well be that petitioner's complaint as now drawn is too vague, but that is no ground for dismissing his ...