Langer v. Home Depot Product Authority, LLC

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 CHRIS LANGER, Case No. 20-cv-06693-SI 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE 10 HOME DEPOT PRODUCT AUTHORITY, STATEMENT LLC, 11 Re: Dkt. No. 12 Defendant. [12] 13 Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement is scheduled for a hearing on December 14 11, 2020. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate 15 for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing. As set forth below, the Court 16 GRANTS the motion. The amended complaint is due by December 4, 2011. [17] 18 BACKGROUND 19 On October 29, 2020, defendant Home Depot Product Authority, LLC (“Home Depot”) filed 20 the present motion seeking “an order requiring Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement as to 21 Plaintiff’s residency.” Dkt. No. 12-1 at 5 (Motion). In his opposition, plaintiff Chris Langer admits 22 that his “county of residence is San Diego (although he spends significant portions of his time living 23 in both the Central and Northern Districts).” Dkt. No. 13 at 6 (Opposition). For reasons that are 24 not clear to the Court, Mr. Langer apparently refused to add that sentence to his complaint, see Dkt. 25 No. 12-1 at 7, thus prompting the instant motion.1 [27] 1 It is the Court’s view that the current dispute should have been resolved through the meet 1 The complaint alleges two causes of action for disability-based discrimination: a federal 2 claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a California state law claim based on the Unruh 3 Civil Rights Act. Compl. ¶¶ 43, 47 (Dkt. No. 1). These claims stem from Home Depot’s alleged 4 failure to provide closed captioning on at least one video on its website. See id. ¶ 18. Home Depot 5 is a Georgia limited liability company. See generally id.; Dkt. No. 12-1 at 6. The complaint alleges 6 that Home Depot owns stores in California, “including several within San Diego County and San 7 Francisco County,” Compl. ¶ 3, and that Home Depot owns its website, id. ¶ 5. The complaint does 8 not allege any other nexus to California. For example, the complaint does not allege that Mr. Langer 9 accessed Home Depot’s website in California or that he resides in California. [10] 11 LEGAL STANDARD 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides that a party may move for a more definite 13 statement of a pleading that is “so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a 14 response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). A Rule 12(e) motion should be considered in light of the liberal 15 pleading standards of Rule 8(a). See Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1461 (C.D. Cal. 16 1996) (citing Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (“Motions 17 for a more definite statement are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted because of the minimal 18 pleading requirements of the Federal Rules.”)). 19 Although motions for a more definite statement “are viewed with disfavor” because of the 20 “minimal pleading requirements of the Federal Rules,” a court should grant such a motion where 21 “the complaint is so general that ambiguity arises in determining the nature of the claim or the parties 22 against whom it is being made.” Braun v. Yahoo, No. 17-cv-06294-SVK, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23 237032, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2018) (quoting Austin v. Cty. of Alameda, No. C-15-0942 EMC, [24] 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80048 , at *12 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2015)). [25] 26 DISCUSSION 27 Home Depot contends that a residency statement is required to determine whether plaintiff 1 within the jurisdiction of this state.” Cal. Civ. Code § 51 (b). “The California Supreme Court has 2 || interpreted the phrase ‘within the jurisdiction of this state’ in accord with its plain meaning as 3 ‘within the state.’” Brooke v. Hyatt Corp., No. 19-cv-07658-TSH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109980 , 4 at *18(N.D. Cal. June 23, 2020) (quoting Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal. 4th 661 , 668 n.4 (2009)). 5 Accordingly, the Unruh Civil Rights Act may only apply in the present action if Mr. Langer is a 6 resident of California or if he accessed Home Depot’s website while in California. See, e.g., Brooke, [7] 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109980 , at *18 (Accordingly, as [Plaintiff] does not claim she was in 8 || California when she viewed the reservation website at issue . . . the Court finds her Unruh Act claim 9 |} is not plausible.”). 10 Under Rule 8(a)(2), Mr. Langer is required to plead “a short and plain statement of the claim 11 showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint does not allege facts, 12 || such as plaintiffs residency, showing where plaintiff's injury occurred and thus whether California 13 law applies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Accordingly, this Court GRANTS the motion for a more 14 || definite statement as to Mr. Langer’s residency. a 16 CONCLUSION 3 17 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Home Depot’s motion for a more definite 18 statement. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by December 4, 2020. [19] 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Sn Mle 22 Dated: November 24, 2020 SUSAN ILLSTON 23 United States District Judge