Gaeta v. Mercer Belanger Professional Corporation
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 13 RULE 12(f) MOTION to Strike 11 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or Alternatively, to Exclude Matters Outside of the Pleadings by Plaintiff Edward Gaeta. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 10/27/16. (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
EDWARD GAETA,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
) CAUSE NO.: 4:16-CV-58-JVB-JEM
)
)
)
v.
MERCER BELANGER, P.C.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike ‘Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Complaint and for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. Civil Rule 12(d)’ or, in the
Alternative, Motion to Exclude Matters Outside of the Pleadings” [DE 13], filed by Plaintiff on
September 6, 2016.
Defendant responded on September 19, 2016 [DE 17]. Plaintiff has not replied, and the time
to do so has passed.
I.
Background
Plaintiff sued Defendant in state court in July 2016, alleging various violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant removed the case to federal court.
Defendant’s deadline to respond to the complaint was September 2, 2016. On that date,
Defendant met his deadline by filing a “Motion to Dismiss Complaint and for Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Fed. Civil Rule 12(d)” [DE 11].
Plaintiff now asks the Court to strike Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff says Defendant’s motion:
(1) violates Local Rule 7-1 by being “two motions in one”; (2) violates the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure by purporting to allow Defendant to avoid filing a responsive pleading; and (3)
improperly presents matters that are not contained in Plaintiff’s complaint.
In the alternative, Plaintiff asks the Court simply to exclude the outside matters presented
in Defendant’s motion.
II.
Analysis
A.
The motion to strike
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure address striking pleadings and parts of pleadings, not
motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (“The court may strike from a pleading . . .”); Centrifugal
Acquisition Corp. v. Moon, No. 09-327, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7684, *3 (E.D. Wisc. Jan. 14, 2010)
(“Motions to strike apply to pleadings, not motions.”). Nonetheless, the Court will address the issues
Plaintiff has raised.
1.
Local Rule 7-1
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s motion violates Local Rule 7-1(a), which requires motions
to be filed separately. N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(a). The Rule’s only exception is that “alternative” motions
may be filed in a single document, but Plaintiff says that Defendant has not filed “alternative”
motions because Defendant’s motion is styled as a “Motion to Dismiss Complaint and for Summary
Judgment,” not a “Motion to Dismiss Complaint or for Summary Judgment” (emphasis added).
But Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), which Defendant’s motion directly cites,
expressly instructs the Court to treat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as a Rule 56 motion for
summary judgment if the motion presents matters outside the pleadings and if the Court does not
exclude those matters. So while the motion’s title uses the word “and,” the motion’s substance
requires the Court to infer the word “or.” In other words, the Court has a choice between excluding
the outside matter and treating the motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, or considering the
outside matter and treating the motion as a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ.
2
P. 12(d). So despite the possibly misleading title, Defendant’s motion does not violate Local Rule
7-1.
2.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s motion violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
by allowing Defendant to avoid responding to Plaintiff’s complaint as required by Rule 12(a). A
Rule 12(b)(6) motion counts, of course, as a responsive pleading, but Plaintiff says that if the Court
uses Rule 12(d) to treat Defendant’s motion as a Rule 56 motion, then Defendant will have avoided
responding to Plaintiff’s complaint. See Modrowski v. Pigatto, 712 F.3d 1166, 1170 (7th Cir. 2013)
(“While serving a Rule 12 motion tolls the deadline for a defendant to file an answer, filing a Rule
56 motion has no such effect.”).
But Defendant has not filed a Rule 56 motion. Rather, he has filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
that presents matters outside the pleadings, allowing the Court, in its discretion, to consider the
outside matters and treat the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a Rule 56 motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d);
Taleyarkhan v. Purdue Univ., 837 F. Supp. 2d 965, 969 (N.D. Ind. 2011). That is simply how Rule
12(d) operates. And indeed, Plaintiff admits that, should the Court treat Defendant’s motion as a
Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, a promptly filed answer would solve the problem.
In short, the Court finds no violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure here.
3.
Matters outside the pleadings
Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s motion improperly presents matters not contained in
Plaintiff’s complaint. But again, Rule 12(d) expressly contemplates this possibility and instructs that
if the Court considers “matters outside the pleadings” in connection with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,
the Court “must” treat the motion as a summary judgment motion under Rule 56. See Fed. R. Civ.
3
P. 12(d). Here, Defendant has simply filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and presented matters outside the
pleadings in the hope that the Court will consider the outside matters and treat the motion as a Rule
56 motion. The Court finds no procedural error.
B.
The motion to exclude
Plaintiff argues in the alternative that, if the Court does not treat Defendant’s motion as a
summary judgment motion, then the Court should exclude the outside matters the motion presents.
Plaintiff is correct that Judge Van Bokkelen may elect not to treat Defendant’s motion as a
summary judgment motion, in which case he would exclude the outside matters presented in the
motion. Taleyarkhan, 837 F. Supp. 2d at 969.
Conversely, Judge Van Bokkelen might decide to consider the outside matters. Plaintiff’s
response to Defendant’s motion [DE 18] treats the motion as a motion to dismiss, so if Judge Van
Bokkelen treats Defendant’s motion as a summary judgment motion, it would be necessary to give
Plaintiff “a reasonable opportunity” to present any pertinent material. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). But the
decision is Judge Van Bokkelen’s, so the Court declines to exclude the outside matters at this time.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike ‘Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss Complaint and for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. Civil Rule 12(d)’ or, in the
Alternative, Motion to Exclude Matters Outside of the Pleadings” [DE 13].
SO ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2016.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:
All counsel of record
4
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?