Scribd
Upload
59 views2 pages

Ramos V

This document summarizes a court case, Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland, regarding five Mexican farm workers suing their employers for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law contracts. While the complaint was lengthy and complex, the court found that it contained potentially meritorious claims. Therefore, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, but directed the plaintiffs to file a more concise amended complaint that complies with the "short and plain statement" rule.

Uploaded by

Nypho Pareño
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
59 views2 pages

Ramos V

This document summarizes a court case, Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland, regarding five Mexican farm workers suing their employers for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law contracts. While the complaint was lengthy and complex, the court found that it contained potentially meritorious claims. Therefore, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, but directed the plaintiffs to file a more concise amended complaint that complies with the "short and plain statement" rule.

Uploaded by

Nypho Pareño
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland, No.

606CV089,
2008 WL 474426 (S.D. Ga., Feb. 19, 2008).

B. Avant Edenfield, District Judge

SYLLABI/SYLLABUS

Not all of the Second Amended Complaint is problematic; within its enigmatic maze of allegations
the Court does decipher potentially meritorious claims. But enough paragraphs and sentences are
needlessly verbose, tangled, fractured, and repetitive as to require corrective action. At the same
time, there is no need to dismiss the Complaint. This is, at the end of the day, a complex matter
with numerous defendants, both foreign and national.

FACTS

In this farm labor case, five plaintiffs seek to bring a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, and a class action under the common law of contracts. Doc.# 1;
doc. # 49 (second amended complaint). Plaintiffs are all Mexican nationals recruited and employed
by the ten named defendants to perform seasonal agricultural work in Toombs and Tattnall County,
Georgia. Doc. # 49 ¶¶ 2, 9. Some of the defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) or, alternatively, for a more definite statement. Doc. # 50

Defendants mainly contend that the length of the Complaint “plus excessive cross-referencing, plus
incoherence, plus circular and convoluted sentence structure,” fail to comply with F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)'s
“short and plain statement” requirement.

ISSUE

Whether or not the defendants’ contention about the complaint is correct?

RULING

No, the defendants’ contention about the complaint is incorrect.

Not all of the Second Amended Complaint is problematic; within its enigmatic maze of allegations
the Court does decipher potentially meritorious claims. But enough paragraphs and sentences are
needlessly verbose, tangled, fractured, and repetitive as to require corrective action. At the same
time, there is no need to dismiss the Complaint. This is, at the end of the day, a complex matter
with numerous defendants, both foreign and national.
FALLO

the Court DENIES the defendants' motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for a more definite statement.
Doc. # 50. However, the Court directs the plaintiffs to file an amended Complaint that complies with
Rule 8(a)(2)'s “short and plain statement” requirement, and do so within 20 days of the date this
Order is served.

You might also like