Dretar v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KENNETH J. DRETAR CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 22-01061 SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, SECTION: T (3) INC., et al. ORDER Before the Court is a Motion for More Definite Statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) filed by Home Bank, N.A. (“Home Bank”).1 Plaintiff Kenneth Dretar has not filed an opposition; nor has he asked for leave to amend his Complaint. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the Complaint2 and the Motion for More Definite Statement, as well as the applicable law.3 Because the Motion for More Definite Statement is unopposed, and appears to have merit with respect to the Complaint’s allegations against Home Bank regarding fraud and violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Homeowner Affordable Modification Program Act, Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act., the Court will grant the Motion. Accordingly, 1 R. Doc. 11. 2 R. Doc. 1. 3 A motion for a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) should only be granted when the pleading at issue “is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.” The motion must state the defects in the pleading and the details desired. A party, however, may not use a Rule 12(e) motion as a substitute for discovery. See Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir.1959) (“[A] motion for a more definite statement is not to be used to assist in getting the facts in preparation for trial as such.”). Moreover, given the liberal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8, Rule 12(e) motions are disfavored. Cousin v. Small, No. Civ. A. 00-0069, 2000 WL 1100384, *1 (E.D.La. 2000). 1 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Defendant Home Bank‘ is GRANTED and Plaintiff shall have until twenty-one (21) days after entry of this order to file an amended Complaint providing a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) in a manner consistent with this decision. If Plaintiff either fails to file a timely amendment or fails to provide a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), the Complaint as it pertains to Home Bank in this adversary proceeding will be dismissed. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of October 2022. GREG GERARD GUIDRY □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *R. Doc. 11.