Pollas v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Robert Pollas filed this case against United Parcel Service, Inc. The opinion states that Pollas was representing himself. The court reviewed UPS’s motion for a more definite statement (ECF No. 8) and Pollas’s motion to remand (ECF No. 7). A motion for a more definite statement asks for a clearer complaint; remand means returning a case to state court.

UPS argued that Pollas’s complaint was unintelligible because it did not identify the specific legal claims he wanted to pursue or explain the theory under which UPS could be responsible. In materials supporting his remand motion, Pollas stated that he had been assaulted and injured, called an offensive homophobic slur, and received no support from UPS. He also alleged that a UPS manager had abused and traumatized him, that UPS refused to help stop the alleged crimes, and identified people who allegedly engaged in unlawful conduct.

Motion for a More Definite Statement

The court explained that motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), which permits a party to seek a more definite statement, are generally disfavored. The court said such a motion should be granted only when a complaint is so vague and ambiguous that it is unintelligible and seriously prevents the defendant from preparing an answer.

The court concluded that Pollas had provided the additional factual and legal detail that UPS claimed was missing, and that his allegations were not so vague or ambiguous that UPS could not respond. The court therefore denied ECF No. 8 as moot.

Motion to Remand and Possible Amendment

Pollas’s state-court complaint named two coworkers and described alleged workplace assault and harassment by them and others. Although those coworkers were not listed in the caption of the original complaint, Pollas named them in the caption of his declaration supporting remand and discussed them in the complaint and remand materials. He also alleged that he, the coworkers, and the other alleged abusers lived in New York.

Because Pollas was representing himself, the court interpreted his filings broadly. The court construed his motion to remand as including a request to amend the complaint to add some or all of the individuals named or discussed in his filings. The court directed Pollas to file an amended complaint naming any individuals he intended to add by February 24, 2023. It deferred ruling on remand until after that filing. The footnote states that adding the coworkers as defendants would eliminate diversity jurisdiction, which is the federal court’s authority over a case involving parties from different states, because the plaintiff and each defendant must be citizens of different states.

Other Procedural Action and Disposition

The court adjourned the previously scheduled initial case-management conference without setting a new date and directed the clerk to close ECF No. 8. Judge Ona T. Wang denied UPS’s motion for a more definite statement as moot and deferred ruling on Pollas’s motion to remand.