USA v. Berryman et al

Filing 76

Minute ORDER denying 73 Motion to Strike All of Plaintiff's Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(f) Nunc Pro Tunc and Motion to Set for Hearing of Motion to Strike by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 06/04/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM
USA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY D. BERRYMAN,
THE TEMPLE OF THE UNVEILED GOD, and
THE OFFICE OF THE OVERSEER OF DEDICATION TO ENLIGHTENMENT, and her
successors, a corporation sole,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Nancy D. Berryman’s (“Berryman”)
Motion to Strike All of Plaintiff’s Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 12(f) Nunc Pro Tunc and Motion to Set for Hearing of Motion to
Strike [Docket No. 73; Filed May 22, 2013] (the “Motion”). On May 20, 2013, Defendant
Berryman filed an identical motion, which the Court denied on May 21, 2013. See Motion
to Strike [#69]; Minute Order [#71]. Unlike the original Motion to Strike, however, the
present Motion includes a separate Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Strike All
Plaintiff’s Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f) Nunc Pro
Tunc, and Motion to Set for Hearing of Motion to Strike [#75] (the “Memorandum”). In light
of the Memorandum, which appears to have been inadvertently not filed with the original
Motion to Strike, the Court reexamines the merits of Defendant Berryman’s request.
As before, Defendant Berryman appears to ask the Court to strike the Complaint [#1;
Filed October 18, 2011] because it “contains no Affidavit and Complaint by a competent
fact witness attesting facts that would commence an action against Alleged Defendants
NANCY D. BERRYMAN, Et al.” [sic] Motion [#73] at 2. Defendant Berryman further argues
that “[t]he Sham Pleading contain[s] no allegations within its four corners which could be
construed to be admissible evidence in an action, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Evidence.” Id.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief,” such as
-1-

the Complaint in this action, “must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds
for the court’s jurisdiction . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .” There is no
requirement that an affidavit or other admissible evidence be included in a complaint.
Further, regarding the remaining arguments set forth in the Memorandum, the Court
notes that Defendant Berryman has raised, and the Court has addressed, these arguments
before in this lawsuit. See, e.g., Recommendation [#66] at 29-33. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#73] is DENIED.
Dated: June 4, 2013

-2-