The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
On March 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this action, naming only one Defendant -- Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. ("Securitas"). See Dkt. No. 1. On March 31, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in which he added United Federation of Security Officers, Inc. ("Union") as a Defendant. See Dkt. No. 3.
Currently before the Court are Defendant Securitas' motion for a more definite statement, pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendant Union's motion to vacate the entry of default judgment. Plaintiff opposes both motions.
A. Defendant Securitas' Motion for a More Definite Statement
In support of its motion for a more definite statement, Defendant Securitas states that "[i]n paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Plaintiff has only alleged that he worked for Securitas. The Complaint does not allege with any particularity the dates on which he was employed by Securitas, the discriminatory treatment alleged to have occurred while an employee of Securitas and the last known occurrence of discrimination." See Affidavit of Ronald G. Dunn, sworn to May 4, 2006, at ¶ 3. Therefore, Defendant Securitas requests that the Court require Plaintiff "to identify the dates employed by Securitas and detail with some degree of particularity the discrimination alleged to have been committed by Securitas against Plaintiff, including when the discrimination occurred, where the discrimination occurred and for how long the discrimination occurred." See id. at ¶ 4. Defendant Securitas argues that, "[w]ithout a more particularized statement, [it is] deprived of [its] opportunity to make a motion that the case is time barred, that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief demanded, and/or that this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims." See id. at ¶ 5.
In response to Defendant Securitas' motion, Plaintiff submitted a "Proposed Amended Complaint." See Dkt. No. 15. In his proposed amended pleading, Plaintiff states that the discrimination was based upon his "race or color," see id. at ¶ 6, and that the conduct about which he complains includes "termination of employment," "failure to promote," "unequal terms and conditions of employment," and "retaliation," see id. at ¶ 7.
In addition, in what appears to be the "FACTS" section of his proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff states that "[t]he most recent or continuing discrimination took place on 11/21/03." See id. (typed sheet). He further asserts that "[o]n or about 5/2/02, [he] started working for Securitas Security Services USA, Inc." See id. (typed sheet at ¶ 2). In addition, Plaintiff contends that, "[a]lthough [he] was assigned level II guard duties in a supervisory capacity from 9/13/02 to 8/7/03, [he] was only being paid at a level I guard rate which is $9.00 per hour compared to [his] white co-workers Jake Hinners and Dave Holmstedt who received the level II, $11.00 per hour pay rate." See id. (typed sheet at ¶ 3).
Finally, Plaintiff claims that he "was suspended on or about 11/14/03 and was terminated on or about 11/21/03 for alleged failure to comply with a direct lawful order to report to the senior branch manager of Securitas office, Hal Steele regarding misconduct on [Plaintiff's] part. When in fact, it was agreed as per a certified letter dated to the union on or about 10/6/03 for [Plaintiff] to meet with Hal Steele and the union because of previous grievances that [Plaintiff] had in place." See id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff explains further that his "grievances were never resolved because the United Federation of Security Officers and Securitas conspired to derail the arbitration process. [Plaintiff] put in [his] first grievance on or about 8/15/03 and a second grievance on or about 11/14/03 because of the suspension to meet with the union, Hal Steele and myself (all parties involved)." See id. Based upon all of these facts, Plaintiff "charge[s] [Defendants] with unlawful discriminatory practice relating to employment because of race, color, discrimination, retaliation and violating [his] civil rights." See id.
Finally, under the "Causes of Action" section of his proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
First Cause of Action: "Filed a grievance[.] Tried to meet with senior branch manager of Securitas office, Hal Steele the union and myself. My grievances were never resolved because the United Federation of Security Officers and Securitas conspired to derail the arbitration process. I put in my first grievance on or about 8/15/03." See id. at ¶ 9.
Second Cause of Action: "filed with the NYS Division of Human Rights[.] The defendant gave false information to them[.] I did not get a chance to rebut the false information before the case was decided[. ...