Talk:Motion for more definite statement

Untitled
In response to notes below and this article, there seems to be a number of factual issues with this article. It may be advantageous for a licensed attorney to review. Among the potential issues: e 1. "...means of obtaining a more detailed motion from the opposing party..." - I am not clear if there are instances in which a motion for a more definitive statement ever pertains to another motion. I believe in most jurisdictions, an issue of lack of clarity with a motion would be handled via an objection to a motion. Generally, I think the motion for a more definitive statement pertains to a complaint -- i.e. a responsive item filed instead of and in advance of an answer to a complaint.

2. "The presiding judge will respond..." -- I am unclear why it is asserted a presiding judge would be the one to respond. My understanding is this would generally be handled by the judge assigned to a case.

In case the earlier talk comments pertain to the existing bulk of this article (and not earlier version), it appears this article pertains to the United States. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically refer to actions in federal courts. Most states, if not all, have their own rules of civil procedures for district courts of the state, that are based substantially on the federal rules of civil procedure. However, an action in a state court would not follow the federal rules; it would follow the specific rules for the district court. So, for example, an action in the Third Judicial District Court (state) for Utah (including Salt Lake County) would follow the Utah Rules for Civil Procedure.

Uberveritas (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If anyone knows what jurisdiction, or even what country, this refers to please fill it in. DJ Clayworth 18:33, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I assumed that in the US. The article mention Federal code of procedure. And what other editor would not bother to enter a country? Przepla 14:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)