Parducci v. Huynh
OPINION AND ORDER granting 23 Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike. The answer filed by defendant Huynh on 8/26/2016 (DE #21) is STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 9/21/16. (ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
QUYNH PHUNG, and
Case No. 2:15-cv-392
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Strike [DE 23] filed by the defendant,
Evelyn Huynh’s, Attorney J. Thomas Vetne on August 27, 2016. For the following reasons, the
motion is GRANTED.
On October 14, 2015, Attorney J. Thomas Vetne entered his appearance [DE 2] on behalf
of the defendant, Evelyn Huynh. Also on October 14, 2015, Attorney Vetne filed an answer to
the complaint [DE 4] for Huynh. The plaintiff, Anthony Parducci, filed an amended complaint
against all the defendants [DE 10] on April 6, 2016. On April 26, 2016, Attorney Vetne
answered the amended complaint [DE 13] pursuant to N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1.
On August 26, 2016, Attorney Lonnie Randolph filed an answer for Huynh [DE 21].
Attorney Randolph has not entered his appearance on behalf of Huynh. Also, Attorney
Randolph’s answer was not filed in compliance with N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1. Attorney Vetne has
filed a Motion to Strike [DE 21] Answer to the Complaint [DE 23].
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states that “the court may strike from a pleading
any. . . redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Motions to strike generally
are disfavored, although they may be granted if they remove unnecessary clutter from a case and
expedite matters, rather than delay them. Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883
F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989); Doe v. Brimfield Grade School, 552 F. Supp. 2d 816, 825
(C.D. Ill. 2008). The decision whether to strike material is within the discretion of the court.
Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 1992).
Pursuant to N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1, responsive pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 7(a) must restate verbatim the paragraphs from the pleading they respond to and
immediately following each restated paragraph state the response to that paragraph.
An amended pleading may be stricken for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 15(a). See Videojet Systems Intern., Inc. v. Inkjet, Inc., 1997
WL 124259, *6-7 (N.D. Ill. March 17, 1997). A party may amend its pleading only with the
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
Leave to amend a pleading is “freely given when justice so requires.” Federal Rule of Civil
Attorney Vetne has requested the court to strike the August 26, 2016, answer filed by
Attorney Randolph. The answer filed by Attorney Randolph on behalf of Huynh is redundant
and has failed to seek leave of the court. Attorney Vetne previously had filed an answer to the
amended complaint on Huynh’s behalf. Also, the answer filed by Attorney Randolph did not
comply with N.D. of Ind. L.R. 10-1. It failed to restate verbatim the paragraphs from the
pleading. Therefore, the court STRIKES the answer filed on August 26, 2016 [DE 21].
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Strike [DE 23] is GRANTED.
ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2016.
/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich
United States Magistrate Judge
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?