CJBRUNO ENTERPRISES INC v. FRANCHISE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS LLC APRIL DRAVIE APRIL RUTTEN (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Dravie's motion for more definite statement. Filing No. 31. In moving for a more definite statement, Dravie contends the complaint fails to adequately plead her liability as an individual rather than as an employee of FCS and fails to plead fraud with particularity. Filing No. 31. Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.

Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against Defendants based on allegations relating to Plaintiff pursuing and ultimately securing financing for a Dickey's BBQ restaurant. Filing No. 1. Defendant Franchise Capital Solutions (“FCS”) is an intermediary in the franchise industry that assists individuals to secure financing from outside financial institutions and related business development. Filing No. 1. Defendant April Dravie (“Dravie”) is apparently a business development manager for FCS and assisted Plaintiff in securing financing for his Dickey's BBQ restaurant. Plaintiff brings four claims against both defendants: (1) fraudulent misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breach of fiduciary duty/aiding and abetting fraud, and (4) civil conspiracy.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides, “[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive statement is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Motions for a more definite statement are appropriate where a party cannot determine the issues he must meet or where there is a major ambiguity or omission in the complaint making it unanswerable. Mason v. ContiTech N. Am., Inc., No. 4:20-CV-3088, 2021 WL 1169408, at *2 (D. Neb. Mar. 26, 2021). “Motions for more definite statement are designed to strike at unintelligibility rather than lack of detail in the complaint.” Tinder v. Lewis Cnty. Nursing Home Dist., 207 F. Supp. 2d 951, 960 (E.D. Mo. 2001) (citation omitted). They should only be granted where the complaint is “so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith, without prejudice to itself.” Eastman v. Cnty. of Sheridan, No. 707CV5004, 2007 WL 1814214, at *4 (D. Neb. June 21, 2007) (internal citations omitted).

Motions for more definite statement are disfavored and are rarely granted in light of the liberal notice pleading standard and the availability of discovery. Mason, 2021 WL 1169408 at, *2; Allstate Indem. Co. v. Dixon, 304 F.R.D. 580, 582 (W.D. Mo. 2015)․ “If the movant believes the opponent's pleading does not state a claim for relief, the proper course is a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) even if the pleading is vague or ambiguous.” 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1376 (3d. ed. 2004); Mason, 2021 WL 1169408 at, *2. Nonetheless, district courts are willing to sustain a Rule 12(e) motion where a complaint fails to satisfy the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) when alleging fraud or mistake. Allstate, 304 F.R.D. at 582.

Despite Dravie's misgivings, the Court finds a more definite statement unwarranted. First, the Complaint is not unintelligible or ambiguous. It is a 13-page statement of numbered facts and allegations, clearly delineated causes of actions, and makes reasonably clear the specific actions of each Defendant. See Rodgers v. Knight, No. 2:13-CV-04033-NKL, 2013 WL 12183669, at *2 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 27, 2013). Nor does Dravie make any argument that admitting or denying the allegations in the Complaint would cause her prejudice. Rather, the majority of Dravie's arguments are akin to those presented in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which is not properly before the Court.

While the Court acknowledges Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements, the allegations within the Complaint are still sufficient. The Eighth Circuit holds that Rule 9(b) is typically satisfied where the complaint alleges “such matters as the time, place, and contents of false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what was obtained or given up thereby.” Drobnak v. Andersen Corp., 561 F.3d 778, 783 (8th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff need not plead every alleged misrepresentation but must provide some representative examples in order to enable defendant to respond. U.S. ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke's Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 557 (8th Cir.2006). Factors such as the nature of the case and relationship of the parties can be considered. Allstate, 304 F.R.D. at 584. Here, the Complaint provides factual allegations that identify the who, what, when, where and how of Dravie's alleged misconduct. The nature of the relationship between the parties, including the small number of individuals involved, the narrow timeframe, and direct communications between Dravie and Plaintiff further supports adequate notice of the claims. Moreover, the Complaint identifies specific information, such as Dickey's BBQ costs metric and sales projections, that Plaintiff contends Dravie personally misrepresented and of which Plaintiff relied. The Complaint does not contain such broad and conclusory allegations to be insufficient under Rule 9(b), warranting a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), and Dravie has been afforded adequate notice of the claims against her.

For these reasons, Dravie's motion for more definite statement, Filing No. 31, is denied.

IT IS ORDERED.

Dated this 25th day of March, 2026.

Jacqueline M. DeLuca United States Magistrate Judge