Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gaines-Varner v. Legal Services Alabama, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

May 22, 2015

CAROLYN GAINES-VARNER, Plaintiff,
v.
LEGAL SERVICES ALABAMA, INC., an Alabama corporation, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON, Senior District Judge.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This cause is before the court on a Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. #6), filed by the Defendant, Legal Services Alabama, Inc.

The Plaintiff, Carolyn Gaines-Varner, filed a Complaint in this case on February 17, 2015 (Doc. #1). The Complaint does not state separate counts for relief. Instead, it contains a statement of the parties, a section establishing jurisdiction and venue, a fact section, and an ad damnum clause.

The jurisdictional statement of the Complaint refers to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the court, refers to age discrimination, and asserts that the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal and right to sue from the EEOC.

The fact section of the Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff applied for a position of Executive Director, but the position was given to a white male, and she objected to a lack of diversity in top management. (Doc. #1 at p.4).

The Complaint also alleges that the Plaintiff relied on an assurance that she would be hired as long as James Fry was the Executive Director of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that she was asked by the Defendant about when she would retire.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated on the basis of her disability and age.

In the ad damnum clause of her Complaint, the Plaintiff states that she seeks damages for violation of her Title VII rights, her rights under the Rehabilitation Act, and her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages and other relief.

The Defendant seeks to have the Plaintiff file a new Complaint which will specify which claims are being asserted.

For reasons to be discussed, the Motion for More Definite Statement is due to be GRANTED.

II. STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), a party may move for a more definite statement when a pleading is "so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading...." A Motion for More Definite Statement is intended to provide a remedy for an unintelligible pleading, rather than a vehicle for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.