## Facts

- The United States sued multiple entities connected to the Wilmington Marine Terminal area, including SICO Company, North American Smelting Company, and Wilmington-related municipal defendants (the City of Wilmington, Port of Wilmington, Board of Harbor Commissioners, and Wilmington Marine Terminal).
- The complaint alleged that, between June 25 and November 27, 1973, oil was discharged into the Delaware River from onshore facilities located on or near the Wilmington Marine Terminal.
- The pleading alleged in the alternative that each defendant either (a) owned and operated facilities from which oil was discharged, or (b) took actions that caused the discharge.
- The United States sought to enforce federal oil-discharge prohibitions and recover removal costs under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. § 1321.
- SICO and NASCO moved for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), arguing the allegations were too vague to answer because they did not specify which defendants were responsible, the amount discharged, the removal costs, or the “actions” causing the discharge.
- The municipal defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b), asserting the action was barred by a Delaware notice-of-claim statute requiring notice to the mayor within one year as a prerequisite to suing the City or its subdivisions.

## Issues

1. Whether a more definite statement was required under Rule 12(e) where the complaint tracked the statutory framework and alleged time, location, and general conduct, but lacked detailed allocation of responsibility and evidentiary specifics.
2. Whether a state notice-of-claim requirement for suits against a municipality barred a federal civil action brought by the United States under federal jurisdictional and enforcement statutes.

## Decision

- The court denied SICO’s and NASCO’s Rule 12(e) motions.
- The court held the complaint was sufficiently clear to permit responsive pleadings and that the requested details were matters for discovery, not Rule 12(e).
- The court denied the municipal defendants’ Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss.
- The court held the Delaware notice-of-claim statute did not bar a federal enforcement action by the United States seeking relief authorized by federal law.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 12(e) relief is limited to pleadings so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.
- A complaint satisfies federal pleading requirements when it provides fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests; it need not plead evidentiary detail such as precise quantities, cost figures, or allocation among multiple defendants.
- Rule 12(e) cannot be used to force an opposing party to disclose its proof or to obtain details better developed through discovery.
- A state or local notice-of-claim prerequisite applicable to suits against a municipality does not bar a federal action brought by the United States to enforce federal statutory rights and recover federally authorized costs.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the United States’ FWPCA oil-discharge and cost-recovery action to proceed on the existing complaint, holding that Rule 8 notice pleading defeated demands for greater detail under Rule 12(e) and that a Delaware municipal notice-of-claim statute could not preclude a federal enforcement suit brought by the United States.


United States v. Bd. of Harbor Comm’rs, 73 F.R.D. 460 (D. Del. 1977)