Which scenario best describes when a motion for a more definite statement is appropriate?

• A. A complaint that is clear and precise
• B. A complaint that contains vague or ambiguous claims
• C. A request for a default judgment
• D. A motion to strike language

Answer: (B)

A motion for a more definite statement is appropriate when the pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the defendant cannot reasonably prepare a response. This tool exists because, under notice pleading, a complaint should provide enough detail so the other side knows what claim is being asserted and can craft an answer. If essential aspects are missing or unclear—such as who breached what contract, when, or on what terms—a court may require the plaintiff to specify those details before the defendant is required to answer.

For example, a complaint that simply alleges “breach of contract arising from a transaction” without identifying the contracting parties, dates, or specific terms leaves the defendant without a way to respond. In such a case, a more definite statement helps narrow the claim so the defendant can formulate a precise answer.

This tool isn’t used when the complaint is already clear and precise. It also isn’t the remedy for seeking a default judgment (that arises from a failure to plead or defend at all) or for removing language as improper (that would be a motion to strike).