CourtListener opinion 10656657

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

[ECF No. 20] 

 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 CAMDEN VICINAGE 

ARTHUR BORNSTEIN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. Civil No. 23-2849 (ESK/EAP) 

MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY 
COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant McMaster-Carr Supply Company's 
Motion for a More Definite Statement. ECF No. 20 ("Def.'s Mot."). Plaintiff pro se Arthur 
Bornstein opposes the motion. ECF No. 22 ("Pl.'s Opp."). Defendant filed a reply brief. ECF 
No. 23 ("Def.'s Reply"). The Court exercises its discretion to decide Defendant's motion without 
oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. Civ. R. 78.1. For the reasons discussed below, 
Defendant's motion is GRANTED. 
 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
 Plaintiff Arthur Bornstein filed this lawsuit against one Defendant—McMaster-Carr 
Supply Company ("McMaster-Carr")—but his allegations in the Complaint are varied and wide-
reaching and concern the allegedly unlawful conduct of others. Plaintiff demands $2.13 million 
that Defendant and other unnamed parties allegedly owe him for violations of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), attorney malpractice, conspiracy to defraud, failure 
to respond to a subpoena, commingling of monies, grand larceny, and obstruction of justice.1 See 
ECF No. 1, Complaint ("Compl.") at 8-14.2 
 As best the Court can discern, Plaintiff alleges that in 2011, Defendant improperly released 
$700,000 from Plaintiff's ex-wife's retirement fund to her without notice to Plaintiff. See id. at 5-

6, 10. Plaintiff claims that he was entitled to some of the money in the fund under a Qualified 
Domestic Relations Order. See id. at 5. Plaintiff further alleges that the release of these funds 
violated ERISA, but he does not specify which section of the statute. See id. Many of the factual 
allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint involve Plaintiff's ex-wife, Plaintiff's past attorneys, and 
various judges who handled related matters. See id. at 7 (alleging that "the actions of McMaster-
Carr and [Plaintiff's] ex-wife carried over to affect [his] legal team, and then the Judges protected 
the lawyers and Judges protected the other previous Judges which created a conspiracy to defraud 
[him]"). Plaintiff further alleges that his former lawyer, Bonnie Frost, Esquire, made Plaintiff sign 
a nondisclosure agreement, which created an "intentional obstruction of justice" to deceive him. 
Id. at 8. In addition, Plaintiff claims that Defendant and his ex-wife robbed him of collecting a 

"$426,000 judgement [sic]" entered in 2022, but Plaintiff does not explain how they prevented 
him from collecting. See id. at 10. Plaintiff further alleges that his ex-wife and her son stole 
money that he was owed from their condominium property, as well as money from his ex-wife's 
jewelry to which he was allegedly entitled. See id. at 11. Finally, attached to the Complaint is a 
nineteen-page "brief" to "Phillip Sellinger and Federal Investigative intake team of the US District 

 1 The Court notes that when pleading a fraud claim, a plaintiff must provide particularized 
facts that "‘place defendants on notice of the precise misconduct with which they are charged.'" 
Argabright v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 258 F. Supp. 3d 470, 476 (D.N.J. 2017) (quotation omitted); see 
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). 
 2 For clarity, the Court cites to the Complaint's ECF document page numbers. 
Court, New Jersey District" that rehashes most of the same allegations in the Complaint. See ECF 
No. 1-4. 
 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
 On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant in this matter, along with 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Compl. The next day, Plaintiff filed a motion to 
appoint pro bono counsel. See ECF No. 4.3 On July 6, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's 
application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice4 and administratively terminated the 
case. See ECF No. 10. On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff paid the filing fee, and the Court reopened the 
case. See Dkt. Sheet. The Court briefly administratively terminated the case again while Plaintiff 
underwent surgery. See ECF Nos. 14, 16. At Plaintiff's request, the Court reopened the matter on 
December 8, 2023, and ordered Defendant to respond to the Complaint no later than January 19, 
2024. See ECF No. 18. 
 On January 19, 2024, Defendant filed the present Motion for a More Definite Statement. 
Def.'s Mot. Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the motion on January 22, 2024. Pl.'s Opp. On 

February 13, 2024, Defendant filed a reply brief. Def.'s Reply. Having been fully briefed, this 
motion is now ripe for disposition. 
 DISCUSSION 
 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(e), "[a] party may move for a more definite 
statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or 
ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response." "The core concern of a motion 

 3 On April 8, 2024, the Court denied this motion without prejudice because Plaintiff is not 
indigent. See ECF No. 30. 
 4 After the filing of the present motion, Plaintiff filed a second and third application to 
proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF Nos. 31, 35, which the Court denied without prejudice, see 
ECF Nos. 34, 37. 
under Rule 12(e) is whether the Complaint gives a defendant the notice required by Federal Rule 
of Civil Procedure 8." Legette v. Tex. Roadhouse, Inc., No. 23-22622, 2024 WL 64779, at *1 
(D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2024) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 590 n.9 (2007) (Stevens, J., 
dissenting) ("The remedy for an allegation lacking sufficient specificity to provide adequate notice 

is, of course, a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement.")). The decision to grant a Rule 
12(e) motion is generally left to the court's discretion. Clark v. McDonald's Corp., 213 F.R.D. 
198, 232 (D.N.J. 2003). 
 When reviewing a Rule 12(e) motion, the Court must consider whether "the pleading is so 
vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot respond, even with a simple denial, in good 
faith, without prejudice to itself." Id. at 232-33 (cleaned up) (quoting Sun Co. v. Badger Design 
& Constructors, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 365, 368 (E.D. Pa. 1996)); see Baker v. N.J. Transit Corp., No. 
10-2954, 2013 WL 4537529, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2013) (granting 12(e) motion where the 
complaint "lack[ed] clarity and factual support"). "‘The basis for granting such a motion is 
unintelligibility, not lack of detail.'" MK Strategies, LLC v. Ann Taylor Stores Corp., 567 F. Supp. 

2d 729, 737 (D.N.J. 2008) (quotation omitted). "Additionally, in cases involving pro se litigants, 
the Court has the added constraint that it must construe submissions by pro se plaintiffs broadly." 
Baker, 2013 WL 4537529, at *2 (citation omitted). 
 Here, Defendant argues that "[i]n order for McMaster-Carr reasonably to respond to the 
Complaint's allegations, it must understand specifically what McMaster-Carr (and not other 
actors) is alleged to have done wrong, when McMaster-Carr's alleged wrongdoing occurred, and 
whether and how Plaintiff's asserted damages are connected to alleged wrongdoing of McMaster-
Carr." Def.'s Mot. at 4-5. First, Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to identify Plaintiff's 
legal claims. Id. at 5. Second, Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to establish ERISA 
standing and subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 6-7. Third, Defendant calls the Court's attention 
the "brief" attached to the Complaint and represents that it "does not know whether it should 
address that brief in a responsive pleading, as it is unclear whether it is to be considered part of 
Plaintiff's Complaint against McMaster-Carr." Id. at 7. Fourth, Defendant notes that the 
Complaint lacks numbered paragraphs, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b).5 

Defendant requests that Plaintiff revise his Complaint so it would: 
 i. state, clearly and concisely, what specific actions McMaster-Carr—and not 
 others—is alleged to have taken that Plaintiff claims were wrongful; 
 ii. specify when McMaster-Carr's allegedly wrongful actions occurred; 
 iii. make clear what legal claims Plaintiff pursues against McMaster-Carr; 
 iv. if McMaster-Carr is alleged to have committed any kind of fraud, include 
 particular allegations describing each fraudulent act and specifying who 
 committed each fraudulent act, when each act occurred, and any other 
 details; 
 v. include factual allegations supporting that Plaintiff may pursue recovery 
 against McMaster-Carr in this Court and at this time; 
 vi. explain the import and relevance of the "brief" attached to the Complaint, 
 why it is attached, and whether and how McMaster-Carr is expected to 
 respond; and 
 vii. include numbered paragraphs. 

Id. at 7-8. 
 Plaintiff responds that Defendant's motion is "unnecessary" and "redundant." Pl.'s Opp. 
at 1. He devotes most of his brief to arguments in support of his motion for pro bono counsel and 
recounting the alleged wrongdoing of his ex-wife and former attorneys. See id. at 1-8. Plaintiff 
references "75 tabs" of legal documents in his possession that presumably support his claims but 
given the desultory nature of the Complaint, the Court cannot be sure. Id. at 2-3. 

 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) requires a party to "state its claims or defenses in 
numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." 
 Having considered the parties' submissions, and having reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint, 
the Court finds that a more definite statement is warranted. In so holding, the Court finds Scott v. 
Rowan Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. 06-6083, 2007 WL 2688887, at *1-2 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2007) 
instructive. In Scott, the Court granted the defendant's Rule 12(e) motion, noting that (1) the 

specific causes of action plead were unclear; (2) the relationship between the parties was unclear; 
and (3) references to a state court case raised questions about the court's jurisdiction. Id. These 
same deficiencies are present here. 
 First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated ERISA by releasing Plaintiff's ex-wife's 
retirement funds to her. See id. at 5. However, aside from making the conclusory statement that 
there was an ERISA violation, Plaintiff fails to plead specific facts identifying Defendant's actions 
that allegedly violated this Act. Moreover, the information that Plaintiff does provide in the 
Complaint is indecipherable and fails to put Defendant on notice of the claims it would have to 
defend. The general allegation of an ERISA violation in the Complaint is "so vague [and] 
ambiguous" that Defendant would not be able to form a meaningful response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(e). Therefore, a more definite statement is needed on this claim. Defendants are requesting no 
more than what Rule 8 already requires: "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 
pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). That standard requires that the Complaint to 
provide "fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." 
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 
47 (1957)). 
 Second, the only defendant named in this case is McMaster-Carr, but Plaintiff's Complaint 
makes many allegations against Plaintiff's ex-wife, ex-wife's son, several of his former lawyers, 
and various judges that seemingly bear no connection to any alleged wrongdoings of Defendant. 
See Compl. at 7, 12-13. It is unclear if Plaintiff's additional claims of fraud, commingling money, 
obstruction of justice, and grand larceny involve Defendant at all or if they are directed at 
nonparties. To be sure, Plaintiff does not make a clear connection between the Defendant and 
these claims. Because these allegations fail to provide Defendant notice of whether any of these 

additional claims are being brought against it, a more definite statement is necessary. 
 Finally, Plaintiff's Complaint includes many references to divorce proceedings or other 
state court proceedings, over which this Court presumably would lack jurisdiction. Without a clear 
connection to Defendant, the purpose of these allegations are unclear to the Court. 
 For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint is "so vague or 
ambiguous" that McMaster-Carr "cannot respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith, without 
prejudice to [itself]." Clark, 213 F.R.D. at 233 (alteration in original)(cleaned up). Accordingly, 
Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement is granted. 
 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
 For the foregoing reasons, 

 IT IS this 19th day of September 2024; 
 ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement, ECF No. 20, is 
GRANTED; and it is further 
 ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date this 
Order is filed that: 
 1. sets forth a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which this Court may exercise 
 jurisdiction over this case; 
 2. sets forth a short and plain statement of his claims showing that he is entitled to relief 
 from the named Defendant McMaster-Carr Supply Company; and 
 3. sets forth his allegations in numbered paragraphs, as required by Federal Rule of Civil 
 Procedure 10(b); and it is further 
 ORDERED that the Clerk's Office shall forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and 
Order to Plaintiff via regular mail and shall enter a notation on the docket indicating the date upon 

which it was mailed to Plaintiff. 

 s/Elizabeth A. Pascal 
 ELIZABETH A. PASCAL 
 United States Magistrate Judge 

cc: Hon. Edward S. Kiel, U.S.D.J.