Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P.

Background

Bloomberg L.P. brought two applications concerning Nafeesa Syeed’s claims in the lawsuit brought by Syeed and Naula Ndugga. First, Bloomberg asked under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) for a more definite statement, meaning a clearer pleading when a complaint is so vague or ambiguous that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. Bloomberg focused on the amended complaint’s reference to “promotions and other career opportunities.” Second, Bloomberg asked under Rule 21 to sever, or separate, Syeed’s claims from Ndugga’s claims. The plaintiffs opposed both requests.

More Definite Statement

The court denied Bloomberg’s Rule 12(e) application. It explained that such motions are generally disfavored and are intended to address unintelligible or confused pleadings, not to obtain additional detail that can be developed through discovery. Although the court stated that it would be better for each denied opportunity to be identified, it found that the amended complaint was not excessively vague or ambiguous.

The court noted that Syeed had provided factual allegations about two positions involved in her failure-to-promote claim. It also rejected Bloomberg’s argument that it needed more detail to challenge claims allegedly exceeding the scope of an earlier order allowing amendment. Bloomberg could raise that issue through a motion to dismiss without obtaining a more definite statement. The court further stated that Bloomberg could respond to the general allegations, including by denying that it had enough information to admit or deny them.

Severance

The court granted Bloomberg’s Rule 21 application to sever Syeed’s claims from Ndugga’s claims. Courts consider whether claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence, involve common legal or factual questions, promote efficiency if handled together, create prejudice if kept together, and require different witnesses or documents.

The court found that the claims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence and did not present common questions of law or fact. The plaintiffs had previously stated that Syeed’s claims shared no overlap with Ndugga’s claims and conceded that separation was appropriate for trial. Although the plaintiffs argued that severance could cause duplicative discovery, fact discovery for Ndugga’s claims had already closed, no discovery had occurred on Syeed’s claims, and relevant discovery from Ndugga’s case could be used in Syeed’s case. The court concluded that the different litigation stages and the ability to share appropriate discovery favored severance and would not harm either party’s interests.

Order

The motion for a more definite statement was denied, and the application to sever Syeed’s claims was granted. The Clerk was directed to open a new case naming Syeed as the only plaintiff, using the Fifth Amended Complaint as the operative pleading and retaining the same defendant and attorney appearances. Within seven days after the new case opened, Syeed had to file an amended complaint removing matters unrelated to her claims. Bloomberg was required to respond within 21 days after that filing. The opinion was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.