Banks v. iGov Technologies Inc. et al
ORDER denying 81 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Continuance of the Mediation Deadline, Pretrial Conference, and Trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 10/6/2015. (JR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No: 8:14-cv-2701-T-17JSS
IGOV TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition
to Defendant’s Motion for Continuance of the Mediation Deadline, Pretrial Conference, and Trial.
(Dkt. 81.) For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is denied.
On June 22, 2015, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 52.) Plaintiff
filed his Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on June 28, 2015. (Dkt. 56.)
On September 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed another response, which was docketed as a response to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement but titled “Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Continuance of the Mediation Deadline, Pretrial Conference, and Trial.” (Dkt. 79.)
Plaintiff’s response states that Plaintiff opposes all motions filed by Defendant, Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 52), the Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
(Dkt. 62), and the Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s five discovery-related motions (Dkt. 77). (Dkt. 79.)
Defendant now seeks to strike Plaintiff’s response on the basis that the response is improper and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows the Court to strike from a pleading “an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(f). However, striking a pleading is a drastic remedy that is generally disfavored by courts.
Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2002)
(quoting Augustus v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Escambia Cty., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir.
1962)). As such, motions to strike will usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible
relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties. Seibel v. Soc’y Lease,
Inc., 969 F. Supp. 713, 715 (M.D. Fla. 1997). Further, courts hold pro se pleadings to a less
stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and therefore construe pro se pleadings more
liberally. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
In light of the above, the Court declines to strike Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Continuance of the Mediation Deadline, Pretrial Conference, and Trial. (Dkt. 79). As
Plaintiff’s response does not unfairly prejudice Defendant, the drastic remedy Defendant seeks is
unwarranted under the circumstances. The Court notes, however, that although pro se pleadings
are afforded liberal construction, Plaintiff is nonetheless required to follow the procedural rules,
including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Middle District of Florida Local Rules. See
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S. Ct. 1980, 1984, 124 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1993) (stating
that “[the Court has] never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be
interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel”); Loren v. Sasser, 309
F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (stating that pro se litigants must conform to procedural rules).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Continuance of the Mediation Deadline, Pretrial Conference, and Trial (Dkt. 81) is
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on October 6, 2015.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?