United States District Court, D. Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes United States District Judge.
the Court is Defendants Tecumseh Products Company LLC's
and Tecumseh do Brasil's (collectively “Tecumseh
Defendants”) motion for a more definite statement (Doc.
42), which is fully briefed. For the following reasons,
Tecumseh Defendants' motion is denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), if “a complaint
is ‘so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot
reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading,'
the defendant may move for an order requiring a more definite
statement by pointing out ‘the defects complained of
and the details desired.” Bautista v. Cty. of
L.A., 216 F.3d 837, 843 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 12(e)
motions are “ordinarily restricted to situations where
a pleading suffers from unintelligibility rather than want of
detail, and if the requirements of the general rule as to
pleadings are satisfied and the opposing party is fairly
notified of the nature of the claim, such motion is
inappropriate.” Castillo v. Norton, 219 F.R.D.
155, 163 (D. Ariz. 2003). Motions for a more definite
statement are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted
because of the federal rules minimal pleading requirements.
Parties are expected to use discovery, not the pleadings, to
learn the specifics of the claims being asserted. See,
e.g., Bruner v. City of Phx., No.
18-CV-664-PHX-DJH, 2019 WL 783000, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 21,
Defendants' argument is three-fold. First, they contend
that Plaintiff's second amended complaint improperly
engages in group pleading. (Doc. 48 at 6-9.) The Court
disagrees. Plaintiff alleges that Tecumseh Defendants are
“responsible for the design, sale, manufacture, and/or
marketing of a compressor and relay” and that such
products “were in a defective condition, and
unreasonably dangerous to users, when they left [Tecumseh]
Defendants' possession or control.” (Doc. 30
¶¶ 8, 10, 16.) The fact that the complaint alleges
in the alternative that other named defendants designed,
sold, manufacturer, and/or marketed the compressor and relay
does not render the complaint vague or unintelligible.
Tecumseh Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to
sufficiently allege applicable dates. (Doc. 48 at 9.) A
complaint need not allege specific dates to meet Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8's pleading requirements. See
Bruner, 2019 WL 783000, at *2. Instead, a complaint
“need only provide [the defendant] with a general
timeframe of when the alleged events occurred[.]”
Id. Plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleges
as much, providing Tecumseh Defendants with outer limits of
when the allegations in the complaint would have occurred-the
defective product was manufactured before December 20, 2016,
and after Tecumseh Defendants began manufacturing the
compressor and relay for the Model CT96 mini-fridge. (Doc. 30
at ¶¶ 8, 10, 12.) To the extent that Tecumseh
Defendants want more specific detail as to the manufacture
date, the proper tool for acquiring as much is discovery, not
a Rule 12(e) motion.
Tecumseh Defendants assert that Plaintiffs complaint fails to
properly allege jurisdiction. (Doc. 48 at 11.) Although
Tecumseh Defendants do not clarify whether their challenge is
to Plaintiffs allegations of personal jurisdiction or subject
matter jurisdiction, the complaint is adequate in either
case. For example, with respect to personal jurisdiction,
Plaintiff alleges that Tecumseh Defendants “designed,
made, sold, distributed, and/or marketed the compressor and
relay for the mini-fridge and otherwise did business in
Maricopa County and the State of Arizona.” (Doc. 30
¶¶ 8, 10.) Moreover, Plaintiff alleged that
Tecumseh Defendants “caused events to occur in Maricopa
County, Arizona, which form the basis of this lawsuit.”
(Id.) Likewise, the complaint offers adequate
allegations of subject matter jurisdiction. For instance,
Plaintiff pleads numerous allegations supporting diversity
jurisdiction, including allegations concerning the amount in
controversy (¶ 1) and the citizenship of the parties
IT IS ORDERED that Tecumseh Defendants'
motion (Doc. 42) is DENIED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tecumseh Defendants shall
respond to the complaint within seven (7)
days of this order.
 Tecumseh Defendants requested oral
argument, but after reviewing the parties' briefing, the
Court finds oral argument unnecessary. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78(b); LRCiv. 7.2(f).
 Moreover, this information probably is
within Tecumseh Defendants' control. Presumably they know
when they became involved in the manufacturing of the subject
product (if at all), and therefore should be able to
determine the outer temporal limits of Plaintiff's claim
When the Court says that the complaint
pleads adequate jurisdictional facts, the Court means that
the complaint includes enough detail to enable Tecumseh
Defendants to file a responsive pleading, be it an answer or
a motion to dismiss. If Tecumseh Defendants believe that the
complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish
jurisdiction, they are free to move to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1) and/or (2), and nothing in this order prejudges the
merits of such a motion. But for present purposes, the