California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Munoz v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., G049133 (Cal. App. 2015):
was an assignee, "are too conclusory, vague and confusing to give each 'defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.' [Citation.]" (Burnett v. Mortgage Electronic Registration (10th Cir. 2013) 706 F.3d 1231, 1240.) Appellant has simply offered "vague alleged acts . . . with zero details or concrete examples. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) In other words, from the first amended complaint, "we cannot tell which defendant is alleged to have done what, nor can we tell what the misconduct was. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) That is to say, we do not know if the respondents were alleged to have made their misrepresentations via letters, faxes, e-mails, telephonic communication, or some other method. We also do not know what persons were alleged to have made misrepresentations on behalf of which of the respondents, and when.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.