Groskreutz v. Agropur Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denies Agropur Inc.’s second motion for a more definite statement and motion to strike in Kenneth Groskreutz’s wrongful-termination and retaliation action. The court concludes that the amended complaint provides sufficient notice, and that Agropur has not shown the challenged allegations are prejudicial or otherwise subject to striking under Rules 12(e) or 12(f).

Holdings

1. A Rule 12(e) motion should be denied when the complaint is intelligible and gives the defendant fair notice of the claim and its grounds, even if the pleading lacks factual detail that can be developed through discovery.
2. A Rule 12(f) motion should be denied where the movant does not demonstrate prejudice and the challenged allegations are not shown to be wholly unrelated to the controversy or otherwise within the rule's grounds for striking matter.
3. A Rule 12(f) motion is not a proper vehicle to obtain dismissal of part or all of a complaint based on an asserted failure to state a claim, and the court will not sua sponte convert such a motion into a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Groskreutz's amended complaint was so vague or ambiguous that Agropur could not reasonably prepare a response, warranting relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).
2. Whether specific allegations in the amended complaint should be stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) as redundant, immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, or prejudicial.
3. Whether the court should treat Agropur's Rule 12(f) motion as an improper attempt to obtain dismissal of allegedly insufficient portions of the complaint.

Disposition

other