United States District Court, D. Connecticut
STANLEY B. SCHEINMAN, Plaintiff,
GLASS AND BRAUS, Defendant.
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
R. UNDERHILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
B. Scheinman, proceeding pro se, brought this action
against law firm Glass and Braus and attorney Jessica
Braus to enjoin their collection of a disputed
debt and to recover related damages. Scheinman asserts
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq., and
Connecticut common law. Am. Compl., Doc. No. 39.
before the Court is a motion for a temporary restraining
order and injunctive relief, a motion for clarification, a
motion for a more definite statement, two motions to strike,
a motion for a default entry, a motion for sanctions, and two
motions to compel. For the reasons set forth below, all
motions are denied.
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief
(Doc. No. 3)
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive
Relief, Scheinman seeks to enjoin Glass and Braus from
"engaging in any collection action" until they
"demonstrate . . . compliance" with the Federal
Debt Collection Practices Act. See Mot. for TRO,
Doc. No. 3, at 2, 3.
injunctive relief is an "extraordinary remedy" that
is "never awarded as of right." Winter v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008).
The Second Circuit applies similar standards in reviewing
motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary
injunctions, and district courts have likewise "assumed
them to be the same." See Foley v. State Elections
Enforcement Com 'n, 2010 WL 2836722, at *3 (D. Conn.
July 16, 2010) (internal citations omitted). Under this
standard, a movant must establish "a threat of
irreparable harm" and either (1) "a probability of
success on the merits" or (2) "sufficiently serious
questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for
litigation, and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in
favor of the moving party." Id. (internal
Second Circuit has interpreted "irreparable harm"
as an "injury for which a monetary award cannot be
adequate compensation," and has therefore declined to
issue preliminary injunctions when money damages offer
adequate compensation. See Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P.
Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 1979).
In the instant motion, Scheinman has not demonstrated that a
monetary award would fail to adequately compensate him for
any loss he would endure as a result of Glass and Braus's
debt collection. Therefore, his motion is
Motion for Clarification on Order for More Definite Statement
(Doc. Nos. 34 and 35) 
also moves for the Court to clarify and modify an order
entered on November 29, 2018, in which I granted Glass and
Braus's motion for a more definite statement of
Scheinman's complaint and directed Scheinman to file an
amended complaint limited to fifteen pages. See
Order Granting Mot. for More Definite Statement, Doc. No. 29.
In light of Scheinman's Amended Complaint, which was
filed on January 3, 2019, 1 deny the motion
Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. No. 42)
and Braus moves for a more definite statement of
Scheinman's Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 12(e). See Mot. for More Definite
Statement, Doc. No. 42. Glass and Braus specifically seeks to
remove the "Background" section of the Amended
Complaint, which details the motion practice and the
Court's orders in this action thus far. See Mem.
In Support of Mot. for More Definite Statement, Doc. No. 43,
at 2-3. According to Glass and Braus, that information is
"improper and do[es] not belong in the Complaint."
Id. at 3.
objective of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(e),
however, is "to remedy unintelligible pleadings,"
not to remove purportedly improper sections from a complaint.
Pullen v. NorthStar Presidio Mgmt. Co., No. 3:98 CV
771 (WWE), 1998 WL 696010, at *1 (D. Conn. Sept. 11, 1998).
To that end, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(e)
permits a party to move for a more definite statement when
the complaint is "so vague or ambiguous that a party
cannot reasonably prepare a response." Fed.R.Civ.P.
case, Glass and Braus has not established that
Scheinman's Amended Complaint is so defective as to
preclude it from responding. For that reason, and because
motions for more definite statement are "generally
disfavored," the motion is denied.
Pullen, 1998 WL 696010, at *1. Glass and Braus shall
file a responsive pleading within 14 days of this order.
Motion to Strike in Part Glass and Braus's Rule 26(a)(1)