Hart v. City of Redwood City
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-02653
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Hart v. City of Redwood City, Judge Rogers denied as moot defendants’ motion for a more definite statement after plaintiffs clarified their claim.
The defendants’ request for clarification was denied as moot, and the plaintiffs were not required to amend or further clarify their sixth cause of action.
What happened
In Hart v. City of Redwood City, the defendants asked the court to require more detail about the plaintiffs’ sixth claim, labeled negligent infliction of emotional distress. They argued that the complaint was unclear because some wording suggested an intentional-emotional-distress claim instead.
The plaintiffs’ opposition confirmed that they were asserting negligent, not intentional, infliction of emotional distress. The court accepted that explanation and declined to require additional clarification.
Judge Rogers denied the motion as moot, terminated the motion from the docket, and vacated the scheduled hearing. The order did not decide whether the emotional-distress claim would ultimately succeed.
The detailed version
- Hart v. City of Redwood City · No. 4:21-cv-02653
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 9, 2021
Background
The defendants moved for a more definite statement concerning the plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action. A more definite statement is a request for clarification when a pleading is allegedly too unclear to answer. The claim was labeled negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The defendants argued that they could not frame a responsive pleading because the complaint appeared uncertain about which emotional-distress claim the plaintiffs were pursuing. They pointed to the claim’s label, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and to allegations using the words “reckless disregard” and “intentional,” which they said suggested intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Court’s Analysis
In their opposition, the plaintiffs confirmed that they were pleading negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court accepted that framing as the law of the case and declined to order the plaintiffs to provide further clarification of the sixth cause of action.
Disposition
The court denied as moot the defendants’ motion for a more definite statement. The order terminated Docket No. 15. The court also determined that the motion could be decided without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for July 13, 2021. The opinion did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ emotional-distress claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.