MGA, INC., Plaintiff, v. PERSONNEL DATA SYS., INC., Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION 00-D-1032-S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15986

October 26, 2000, Decided

October 26, 2000, Filed

COUNSEL: [*1] For MGA, INC., plaintiff: Jeffrey M. Grantham, Brannon J. Buck, Richard Allen Kilgore, Jr., Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, AL.

For PERSONNEL DATA SYSTEMS, INC., defendant: Lewis W. Page, Jr., John S. Johnson, Page Law Firm, Birmingham, AL.

JUDGES: Ira DeMent, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

OPINION BY: Ira DeMent

OPINION:

ORDER

Before the court is Defendant's Motion For Relief Under The Federal "Y2K Act," which was filed August 1, 2000. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff filed a Response on September 8, and Defendant issued a Reply on September 22. As explained below, the court cannot properly rule on Defendant's Motion because the court is unclear what, precisely, Plaintiff is alleging. Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to amend its complaint to clarify whether it is alleging an action related to an "actual or potential Y2K failure," as contemplated by Congress. See Y2K Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6602(2).

A "Y2K action" is defined as the "failure by any device or system" to respond appropriately to

year-2000 related data, including failures--(A) to deal with or account for transitions or comparison from, into, and between the years 1999 and 2000 respectively; [*2] (B) to recognize or accurately to process any specific date in 1999, 2000, or 2001; or (C) accurately to account for the year 200's status as a leap year, including recognition and processing of the correct date on February 29, 2000.

Id.

On the one hand, Plaintiff alleges its prior software package "was not year 2000 compliant and would thus fail on January 1, 2000" and that Defendant falsely misrepresented that its software package "would make MGA's computer system year 2000 compliant." (Compl. PP 3, 8(d), 15). While Plaintiff clarifies its Complaint by giving specific examples of how PDS's representations were false, these specific examples do not negate the broad, general sweep of the Complaint. (Id. P 15.) In other words, Plaintiff's allegation implies that the software package did not accurately process year 2000-related data.

But on the other hand, Plaintiff also submits an uncontradicted affidavit that Defendant's software "was 'Y2K compliant' from the standpoint that it could process and store year 2000 date related information." (Mims Aff.) If so, then the Y2K Act has no bearing on this litigation. Defendant is entitled to the Y2K Act's cooling off periods, [*3] alternate dispute resolution requirements, and heightened pleading standards only if Plaintiff's claims fall within the types of cases singled out by Congress. While Congress may enact appropriate measures to alleviate docket crowding and to minimize unnecessary burdens upon the court and the parties, the court also has a "virtually unflagging obligation" to exercise its Article III powers. See, e.g., Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 19, 74 L. Ed. 2d 765, 103 S. Ct. 927 (1983).

Based upon the available evidence and the pleadings, the court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is alleging a Y2K action. See 15 U.S.C. § § 6602(1)-(2). Therefore, in order to facilitate proper disposition of this matter on its merits, and also to comport with congressional mandate, the court is construing Defendant's Motion as one for a more definitive statement. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e); see also id. 8(f) ("all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.")

Pursuant to Rule 12(e), it is hereby CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 10 days after notice of this Order to clarify whether its cause of action is based upon [*4] any "actual or potential Y2K action." See 15 U.S.C. § 6602(2). Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint resolving any vagueness on this point and setting forth its causes of action in all respects. n1 The court will treat the amended complaint in accordance with Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). It is further CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Defendant shall have the appropriate amount of time to file an answer thereto. See id. 12(a). Moreover, if Defendant continues to feel it appropriate, then it may file the requisite notices that it believes Plaintiff has filed a Y2K action. n2 See 15 U.S.C. § 6606.

n1 To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging fraud, it must be mindful of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's heightened pleading requirements. See FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b).

n2 The court notes, without deciding the issue, that if Plaintiff's Amended Complaint conforms with the representations made in the Mims Affidavit, then the court will not be inclined to treat the Complaint as a Y2K action.

 [*5]

DONE this 26th day of October, 2000.

Ira DeMent

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE