Gomez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARITZA ANA GOMEZ
VERSUS
COSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP,
INC., ET AL.
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-1196
SECTION “M” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Pending before me is Republic National Distributing Company’s Motion for More Definite
Statement. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff Ana Maritza Gomez filed an Opposition Memorandum. ECF
No. 38. No party requested oral argument in accordance with Local Rule 78.1, and the court agrees
that oral argument is unnecessary.
Having considered the record, submissions and arguments of counsel, and applicable law,
Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement is DENIED for the reasons stated herein.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit in state court alleging that she sustained personal injuries when the
bottom of a case holding six bottles of Proseco failed, causing glass from the broken bottles to cut
her hand. ECF No. 1-2 ¶ 11. Defendants Costco Wholesale Corporation and Costco Wholesale
Membership, Inc. removed the case to this Court, after which Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint adding Young’s Market Company, LLC d/b/a Republic National Distributing Co.
(“Republic”). 	ECF Nos. 1, 26. 	In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Republic
distributed the Prosecco or Campo Viejo Cava Brut at issue and repeated her allegations regarding
how she sustained injury. ECF No. 26 ¶¶ 8, 11.
Republic now moves for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. 	After recounting Plaintiff’s allegations, Republic asserts that the
Case 2:25-cv-01196-BWA-DPC Document 40 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Complaint is vague and contains ambiguities that renders it unintelligible. 	ECF No. 36-1 at 3.
Specifically, it asserts that Plaintiff fails to describe the unreasonably hazardous condition and
suggests it cannot discern whether she refers to the box, the bottle, the premises itself or something
else which implicates different theories of recovery (i.e., products or premises liability). 	Id.
Republic also asserts that Plaintiff’s assertion that she picked up a bottle of Prosecco or Campo
Viejo Cava Brut is so vague that it prevents Republic from determining whether it actually
distributed the alleged product. Id.
In Opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the Complaint specifically states that, while lifting the
case of Prosecco, the bottom of the case fell apart, causing a bottle to crash to the floor and a piece
of glass cut her. ECF No. 38 at 1. Plaintiff asserts that the Complaint provides sufficient notice
as required by Rule 8 and fairly apprises Republic of the issues it must meet, and Republic can
obtain any further details it seeks through discovery. Id. at 2-3.
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff's complaint
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
The complaint need not provide “detailed factual allegations” but must simply provide the
plaintiff's grounds for entitlement to relief.1 To satisfy Rule 8, the complaint must provide the
defendant with fair notice of what plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.2
Rule 12(e) entitles a party to a more definite statement when a portion of a pleading to
which a responsive pleading is allowed “is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably
prepare a response.”3 A Rule 12(e) motion must state the defects in the pleading and the details
1 Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007).
2 Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002).
3 FED. R. C IV. P. 12(e). Rule 12(e) looks to “whether the complaint is so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be
unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to answer.” Coleman v. H.C. Price Co., No.
Case 2:25-cv-01196-BWA-DPC Document 40 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 4

3
desired.4 Rule 12(e) essentially provides a remedy for unintelligible pleadings and is successfully
invoked where “(1) a responding party cannot reasonably respond to a pleading or (2) the pleading
does not provide sufficient notice.”5
In deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(e) motion, “[t]he trial judge is given considerable
discretion.”6 Motions for more definite statements are generally disfavored because of the liberal
pleading standards of Rule 8.7 If, however, a pleading “fails to specify the allegations in a manner
that provides sufficient notice,” then a Rule 12(e) motion may be appropriate.8 A Rule 12(e) order
is thus a proper remedy where allegations in a complaint are “conclusory, confused, and unclear”
but do not “justify dismissal of the suit on the merits and without leave to amend.”9 But discovery,
not a motion for more definite statement, is the appropriate vehicle to develop the facts of the
case.10
While Plaintiff’s complaint may lack some specifics in describing her claim against
Republic, it contains enough information to provide Republic with sufficient notice that she
contends Republic distributed product in a defective box because the bottom dropped out when
she lifted it. Her reference to “Prosecco or Campo Viejo Cava Brut” does not render her pleading
so vague or ambiguous that Republic cannot reasonably respond. 	Indeed, Rule 12(e) is not
11-2937, 2012 WL 1118775, at *6 (E.D. La. Apr. 3, 2012) (citations and internal quotations omitted); see also Babcock
& Wilcox Co. v. McGriff, Seibels & Williams, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 632, 633 (E.D. La. 2006) (Barbier, J.) (noting the
standard for evaluating a motion for more definite statement is whether the complaint “is so excessively vague and
ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to answer it” (quoting
Advanced Commc'ns Techs., Inc. v. Li, No. 05-4628, 2005 WL 3215222, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2005))).
4 Alford v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 13 F. Supp. 3d 581, 590 (E.D. La. 2014) (Vance, J.).
5 Dubuque Barge & Fleeting Serv., Inc. v. Plaquemines Par. Gov’t, No. 10-0516, 2010 WL 1710372, at *2 (E.D. La.
Apr. 23, 2010) (citations omitted).
6 Murungi v. Tex. Guaranteed, 646 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (E.D. La. 2009) (Vance, J.) (citation omitted).
7 Alford, 13 F. Supp. 3d at 590 (citations omitted). Rule 8 simply call for a short and plain statement of the claim to
give the defendant fair notice of the claim and its basis. Id. at 590-91 (citations omitted).
8 Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 514.
9 Cates v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 756 F.2d 1161, 1180 (5th Cir. 1985); see Adams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., No. 25-
1406, 2025 WL 3003335, at *4 (E.D. La. Oct. 27, 2025) (Fallon, J.).
10 Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir. 1959) (stating that a party may not use a Rule 12(e)
motion as a substitute for discovery).
Case 2:25-cv-01196-BWA-DPC Document 40 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 4

4
designed to address every lack of detail, and more specific information, including the particular
brand of alcohol at issue, may be obtained through discovery. 	Of course, after a period of
discovery, Defendant will have the right to seek summary judgment if there are no facts to support
Plaintiff's assertions that it distributed the product at issue. At this stage, however, Republic will
not be prejudiced in answering the Complaint.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED Defendant Republic National Distributing Company’s Motion for More
Definite Statement is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ________ day of January, 2026.
___________________________________
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7th
Case 2:25-cv-01196-BWA-DPC Document 40 Filed 01/07/26 Page 4 of 4