SALIBA v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATOR (2025)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Federal Aviation Administrator's (“Defendant's”) Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 14), in which Defendant requests—pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e)—that this Court require Plaintiffs Bahig Saliba, et al., (“Plaintiffs”) to amend their Complaint to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 14 at 1). Plaintiffs filed a Response (Doc. 16), and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 17). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 4, 2024, Plaintiffs Bahig Saliba, Mark Charles Bashaw, and Jeffery Chandler (“Plaintiffs”) filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. 1), stylized as a “Writ of Mandamus and Demand for Performance of Duty by Agency.” (Doc. 1 at 1). The Complaint alleges myriad legal violations by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), primarily related to COVID-19 pandemic procedures, especially its vaccination policies. (See generally Doc. 1). Plaintiff Bahig Saliba is an American Airlines pilot who has filed multiple similar pro se lawsuits. (Doc. 14 at 1). On November 14, 2024, an Amended Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs. (Doc. 8). Defendant contends that the Amended Complaint “is unintelligible and provides Defendant no reasonable way to prepare a response.” (Doc. 14 at 2). Specifically, Defendant contends that the Amended Complaint “includes material which appears to be wholly unrelated to the claim, and provides so little detail regarding Plaintiffs Bashaw and Chandler that Defendant cannot reasonably form a response to the Amended Complaint.” (Id.).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). This rule is intended “to strike at unintelligibility rather than want of detail.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dean, 854 F. Supp. 626, 649 (D. Ariz. 1994). A properly pleaded complaint must include: (1) “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction;” (2) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;” and (3) “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Where a complaint contains the factual elements of a cause, but those elements are scattered throughout the complaint without any meaningful organization, the complaint does not set forth a ‘short and plain statement of the claim’ for purposes of Rule 8.” Chagolla v. Vullo, 2018 WL 10602297, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2018) (citation omitted).

“Rule 12(e) motions are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted.” Ascension Arizona v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2022 WL 4484356, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 27, 2022) (quoting Adobe Systems, Inc. v. A & S Electronics, Inc., 153 F. Supp. 3d 1136, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). “Mere vagueness is generally not grounds for dismissal. Thus, a motion for a more definite statement should not be granted unless a defendant ‘literally cannot frame a responsive pleading.’ ” Daimler AG v. A-Z Wheels LLC, 2017 WL 9854427, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2017) (internal citations and quotation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ Complaint “seeks orders directing the FAA Administrator to comply with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, recommence a particular investigation, expand that investigation to include other aircraft carriers, aircraft manufacturers, pilot unions, and FAA agents and personnel, suspend the authorization of the COVID vaccines, and for the Court to order ‘suspension, and the complete revocation of such drugs, for pilot use in commercial air transportation and otherwise.’ ” (Doc. 17 at 2 (quoting Doc. 8 at 44)). However, Defendant contends that “the Amended Complaint provides no factual allegations relating to the remedies sought.” (Id.).

Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court agrees that the Plaintiffs’ claims are difficult to parse. Despite 45 pages of allegations, the Amended Complaint fails to articulate the discrete legal claims Plaintiffs are asserting against Defendant, and it fails to identify which facts pertain to which claims. The Court notes that, “even as lawyers must, pro se litigants must become familiar, and comply, with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the District Court for the District of Arizona.” Oliver v. Long, 2007 WL 623783, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 23, 2007) (citing Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986)); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 56, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”).

The Court recognizes that motions for a more definite statement are not typically granted; however, in this case, the Amended Complaint suffers from a level of unintelligibility that would render it impossible for any Defendant to be certain they have responded to each of the Plaintiffs’ claims.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the Motion for More Definite Statement shall be granted. Any amended pleading submitted by Plaintiffs must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Federal Aviation Administrator's Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 14) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Bahig Saliba, Mark Charles Bashaw, and Jeffery Chandler are granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order no later than Monday, March 10, 2025. Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(4)(B), Defendant shall serve responsive pleadings within 14 days after Plaintiffs’ more definite statement is served.

Steven P. Logan, United States District Judge