Gomez v. Dresser
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-06307
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Gomez v. Dresser: Judge Freeman granted Dresser’s motion for a more definite statement and ordered Gomez to amend her complaint within 21 days.
Michelle Gomez must file an amended complaint within 21 days of the order. William Charles Dresser’s motion was granted.
What happened
In Gomez v. Dresser, William Charles Dresser asked the court to require Michelle Gomez to provide a clearer complaint so he could respond.
The court found that Gomez’s complaint was too unclear because it used “plaintiff” and “defendant” without making clear whether those terms referred to this case or an earlier lawsuit. Gomez did not oppose the motion.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Dresser’s motion and ordered Gomez to file an amended complaint addressing the problems within 21 days of the order. The order warns that failing to comply could result in the complaint being stricken or another appropriate order.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Dresser · No. 5:23-cv-06307
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 18, 2024
Background
William Charles Dresser filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) for a more definite statement. This type of motion asks the court to require a party to clarify a pleading that is so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot reasonably prepare a response. Michelle Gomez did not file an opposition.
The complaint appears to arise from an earlier lawsuit in which Dresser allegedly represented Gomez. The court found that the complaint used the terms “plaintiff” and “defendant” without identifying whether they referred to the parties in this case or the parties in the earlier lawsuit. The court concluded that the complaint did not give Dresser a sufficient basis to prepare a response.
Ruling
The court granted Dresser’s motion for a more definite statement. It ordered Gomez to file an amended complaint within 21 days of the order that cures the deficiencies identified in the motion and adopted by the court. The court stated that, if Gomez does not comply, it may strike the pleading or issue another appropriate order under Rule 12(e). The order also encouraged Gomez to contact the Federal Pro Se Program, which provides limited services and advice to people representing themselves.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.