IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 14, 2009
FREDERICK JONES, SR., PLAINTIFF,
JOHN BURK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Wunderlich United States Magistrate Judge
On April 23, 2009, Defendants Burk, Thorenson and Carbonaro filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On April 28, 2009, a discovery order was entered, setting the deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. On May 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed a document titled as a reply to the answer and a motion to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
In this submission, Plaintiff appears to set forth legal arguments in response to Defendant's answers and affirmative defenses. Plaintiff is advised that a reply to the answer is not a recognized pleading within the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, though Rule 12(f) does authorize the court to strike from a pleading "an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, or scandalous matter." Plaintiff has made no showing as to why the court should strike any portion of Defendants' answer.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to strike the answer is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.