BARRIENTOS v.

BLAND

Badge: Short and Plain Statement

Caption: Nicolas Ramos-Barrientos v. Delbert C. Bland, United States, District Court, S.D Georgia,
Statesboro Division, No. 606CV089, Feb. 19, 2008, B. Avant Edenfield, District Judge.

Syllabus: “Short and plain statement” requirement; each averment of a pleading shall be simple,
concise, and direct; and it is not served by page-long sentences permeated with broken clauses and
cross-references.

Facts: Five plaintiffs seek to bring a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class
action under the common law of contracts. Defendants mainly contend that the length of the complaint
was failed to comply with short and plain and statement.

The court agreed with the defendants because the complaint is 68 pages long with 132 paragraphs, not
including the prayer of relief. More problematic than the overall length though, is the writing style
employed.

Plaintiffs are all Mexican nationals by the ten named defendant. And some of the defendants have
moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

Issues: Whether or not the court will dismiss the defendant’s motion, the plaintiffs should make a
simple, concise and direct statement.

Ruling of the Supreme Court: District Courts in this situation may dismiss a complaint without prejudice.
Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate where complaint was “needlessly lengthy, verbose, and
repetitious”. Even if the paragraphs and sentences are needlessly verbose, tangled, fractured, and
repetitive as to require corrective action, there is no need to dismiss the complaint.

Therefore, the court denies the defendant’s motion to dismiss or alternatively, for a more definite
statement. However, the court directs the plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint that complies with
“Short and Plain Statement” requirement, and do so within 20 days of the date this order is served.

Fallo: Wherefore, the defendant’s motion was denied.