Lowe v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANGELA LOWE,
Plaintiff.
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.,
Defendant.
No. 4:25-CV-01806
(Chief Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
J ANUARY 30, 2026
Angela Lowe (“Plaintiff”) filed a one-count complaint against Wal-Mart
Stores East, L.P. (“Defendant”) in the Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, Court of
Common Pleas, suing Defendant for negligence. 1 Defendant removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania based on
diversity jurisdiction. 2 Now, Defendant brings the instant motion for a more definite
statement.3
The action arises out of Plaintiff’s slip-and-fall incident at Wal-Mart stores.
Plaintiff alleges that, while shopping, she “stepped into an accumulation of a creamy,
slimy, slippery, whitish/speckled substance on the floor” that was not readily visible
to Plaintiff, causing her to fall.4 As to Plaintiff’s injuries, Plaintiff pleads that the
1 	Doc 1-1 (Compl.).
2 	Doc. 1 (Notice of Removal).
3 	Doc. 2 (Mot.).
4 	Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 4-6.
Case 4:25-cv-01806-MWB Document 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 4

2
substance “caus[ed] her to fall forcefully to the floor striking her head on a nearby
shelf seriously injuring her head, neck, back and upper extremities,” and that she
“suffered serious injuries.”
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides that “[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.”5 “The prevailing standard employed by Third Circuit courts is to grant a
Rule 12(e) motion ‘when 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].’”6
“[C]ourts have held that the class of pleadings that are appropriate subjects
for a motion under Rule 12(e) is quite small—the pleading must be sufficiently
unintelligible for the court to be able to make out one or more potentially viable legal
theories on which the claimant might proceed.”7 “‘The basis for granting such a
motion is unintelligibility, not lack of detail. As long as the defendant is able to
respond, even if only with a simple denial, in good faith, without prejudice, the
5 	FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e).
6 	MK Strategies, LLC v. Ann Taylor Stores Corp., 567 F. Supp. 2d 729, 736-37 (D.N.J. 2008)
(quoting Clark v. McDonald’s Corp., 213 F.R.D. 198, 232-33 (D.N.J. 2003)).
7 	Toc v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., No. 3:25-CV-292, 2025 WL 3657210, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Dec.
17, 2025) (internal quotation omitted); Sun Co., Inc v. Badger Design & Constructors, 939
F.Supp. 365, 374 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
Case 4:25-cv-01806-MWB Document 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 4

3
complaint is deemed sufficient for purposes of Rule 12(e).’”8 “Because Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8 requires only a short and plain statement of the claim, motions
for a more definite statement are ‘highly disfavored.’” 9
Under this standard, Plaintiff is not required to replead for a more definite
statement. Plaintiff pled that the slip and fall “caus[ed] her to fall forcefully to the
floor striking her head on a nearby shelf seriously injuring her head, neck, back and
upper extremities.” 10 It is manifestly evident, to the Court at least, what legal theory
Plaintiff is pursuing and the category of injuries Plaintiff claims to have. The
allegations of negligence “are not so vague, ambiguous, or unintelligible that
Defendan[t] cannot frame a responsive pleading.” 11
8 	Sun Co., 939 F. Supp. at 374 (quoting Wood & Locker, Inc. v. Doran & Assocs., 708 F. Supp.
684, 691 (W.D. Pa. 1989)).
9 	Country Classics at Morgan Hill Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Country Classics at Morgan Hill,
LLC, 780 F. Supp. 2d 367, 371 (E.D. Pa. 2011).
10 	1-1 ¶ 5.
11 	Sun Co., 939 F. Supp. at 375. And, to the extent that Defendant’s motion is better framed as a
motion to dismiss based on failure to allege sufficient damages, Doc. 4 (Br. in Supp.) at 4
(“Plaintiff has failed to plead a crucial element of a negligence claim: the actual damages which
occurred.”), such a motion would be denied as well. Plaintiff has pled more than bare
conclusory allegations that she was injured, stating that she “f[e]ll forcefully to the floor
striking her head on a nearby shelf seriously injuring her head, neck, back and upper
extremities . . . which have caused her great pain, impairment, and suffering, both physical and
emotional.” Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 5, 13. This is more than a bare conclusion that she was injured or
that she suffered harm, and provides sufficient grounds to proceed to discovery as it “‘give[s]
the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” See
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 47 (1957)); see also Falcone v. Dickstein, 92 F.4th 193, 203 (3d Cir. 2024) (“In the context
of a motion to dismiss, the ‘[i]njury-in-fact element is not Mount Everest,’ and [Plaintiff] need
only allege ‘some specific, identifiable trifle of injury.’”) (quoting Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch.
Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 278 (3d Cir. 2014)). While Plaintiff’s injuries are not very detailed, they
are sufficient to allege that an injury occurred to those types of the body and, as Plaintiff also
described the cause, the general type of injury is evident.
Case 4:25-cv-01806-MWB Document 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Therefore, Defendant’s motion for more definite statement, Doc. 2, is
DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-01806-MWB Document 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 4