Nyanjom v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 43 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 36 Portions of Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint. Signed by District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 11/12/2013. Mailed to pro se party Harold M. Nyanjom by regular mail. (ms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
HAROLD M. NYANJOM,
Case No. 12-1461-JAR-KGG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This employment discrimination action was originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York; it was transferred on December 11, 2012. The case
was stayed pending resolution of Defendant Hawker Beechcraft Corporation’s (“Hawker
Beechcraft”) bankruptcy from January 22, 2013 until May 29, 2013, after the Court was advised
that Plaintiff Harold M. Nyanjom, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, had been granted
relief from the bankruptcy court in order to pursue his cause of action before this Court.
Defendant filed its Answer on July 22, 2013, and the case proceeded to a scheduling conference
and discovery. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s Answer
and Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 43). The motion is fully briefed and the Court is prepared to
rule. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint on November 27, 2012, alleging claims for
discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate against his former employer, Hawker
Beechcraft, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Attached to the Complaint are 129 pages worth of exhibits. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in
the Southern District of New York because Hawker Beechcraft had declared Chapter 11
Bankruptcy in that district. Finding venue lies in the District of Kansas, the Southern District of
New York transferred this matter on December 11, 2012. Judge Gale granted Plaintiff leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
On January 18, 2013, Hawker Beechcraft filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy and this Court
promptly ordered the case stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy case. On February 28,
2013, Defendant filed a Status Report with the Court, advising that the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York had confirmed the Chapter 11 Plan of
Reorganization, which, among other things, provided for a discharge of Hawker Beechcraft from
debts and claims that arose before February 1, 2013, in exchange for the distributions, rights, and
treatment provided in the Plan. Defendant contended that Plaintiff was enjoined and precluded
under the confirmed Plan from continuing the causes of action in this matter. The automatic stay
was lifted on February 15, 2013.
The Court entered an Order and Notice to Show Cause why Plaintiff’s claims were not
precluded under the Bankruptcy Plan, Plaintiff responded, and Defendant sought and received
several extensions of time to reply. On May 20, 2013, Defendant filed a Bankruptcy Stipulation,
approved by the Bankruptcy Court, which modified the Plan injunction for the limited purpose of
permitting Plaintiff to proceed with this litigation so that the value of his claim could be
liquidated. Counsel for Defendant contacted the Court by e-mail on May 22, 2013, to advise that
the Stipulation was on file, and inquired as to whether Judge Robinson would be issuing “some
sort of order telling us to go forth and litigate, or should we go ahead and get an Answer on file
without that happening.”1 Counsel was advised that Judge Gale’s chambers had been notified
about the stipulation and that he should be contacting the parties soon to set a scheduling or
status conference. This Court issued an Order on May 29, determining that the case should not
be dismissed and should proceed with pretrial matters and proceedings. On July 18, Judge Gale
issued a notice of hearing for a scheduling conference on August 21. On July 22, Defendant
filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses (“Answer”) (Doc. 36).
Plaintiff now moves to strike the Answer, arguing that the Answer: (1) is untimely; (2)
fails to properly respond to certain issues; (3) contains statements that are not supported by
record references, are not fair or complete statements of the facts, or contain disputed facts that
are not stated in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
Standard for Striking a Pleading
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), the Court may strike an insufficient defense from a pleading,
or “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” However, motions to strike
are generally disfavored because striking an entire pleading is a drastic remedy and such a
motion is often brought as a dilatory tactic.2 “The Court will usually deny a motion to strike
unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and are likely to cause
prejudice to one of the parties.”3
Doc. 57, Ex. 1.
See A.H. ex rel. Hohe v. Knowledge Learning Corp., No. 09-2517-DJW, 2011 WL 1766067, at *1 (D.
Kan. May 9, 2011).
Sellers v. Butler, No. 02-3055-DJW, 2006 WL 2873470, at *1 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006) (footnote and
Plaintiff first argues that the Answer should be stricken as untimely. Generally, a
responsive pleading must be filed within twenty-one days after service of the summons and
complaint.4 The procedural history of this case complicates application of this deadline.
Defendant filed its Suggestion of Bankruptcy the day after service of the Complaint, on January
18, 2013. The automatic bankruptcy stay was in place until February 15, 2013, during which
time Defendant could not answer. This Court later issued a Notice and Order of Show Cause,
which was not resolved until its Order of May 29, 2013, that the case should not be dismissed
and should proceed. Defendant filed its Answer on July 22, 2013, well beyond the twenty-oneday deadline that would have been triggered by the Court’s May 29 Order. But the fact that the
Answer was untimely does not end the inquiry. Defendant asks the Court to allow the Answer to
be filed out of time because the delay was excusable.
A request to file out of time requires a showing of excusable neglect.5 Excusable neglect
is a somewhat elastic concept and is not limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the movant.6 The determination of whether excusable neglect has been
established is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances
surrounding the party’s omission including, (1) the danger of prejudice, (2) the length of the
delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reasons for the delay which
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); D. Kan. R. 6.1(a).
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. L.P., 507 U.S. 380, 391–92 (1993).
includes whether it was within the reasonable control of the party seeking to show excusable
neglect, and (4) whether that party acted in good faith.7
The Court agrees that the delay here was excusable and therefore grants Defendant’s
request for leave to file the Answer out of time. Counsel for Defendant contacted the Court to
inquire as to whether the Court would issue an order accepting the stipulation and directing the
litigation to proceed. Defendant was advised that Judge Gale would be contacting the parties
regarding status and scheduling, and counsel awaited that order. While Defendant was certainly
never advised not to filed its Answer until hearing from Judge Gale’s chambers, it appears that
Defendant misunderstood the clerk’s direction. Within days of receiving the notice of hearing
for the scheduling conference, Defendant filed the Answer. The delay was only about one
month, during which time several motions by Plaintiff were filed and decided by Judge Gale,
unrelated to the pleadings.
There is no showing of prejudice. The Answer was filed well before the report of parties
planning meeting deadline and the scheduling conference. And given the significant
communication between the parties in reaching the stipulation during the period of stay, the
danger of surprise and risk of prejudice in this one-month delay is negligible. Finally, the Court
is convinced that Defendant acted in good faith, believing it should wait for further instruction
from the Court before proceeding to file a responsive pleading. Considering all of the relevant
circumstances, the Court finds Defendant’s delay in filing the Answer was excusable neglect and
leave is granted to file it out of time.
Substantive Challenges to the Answer
Id. at 395; see also Bishop v. Corsentino, 371 F.3d 1203, 1206–07 (10th Cir. 2004); City of Chanute v.
Williams Natural Gas, 31 F.3d 1041, 1046 (10th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff’s remaining arguments on the motion to strike challenge both the general denials
and defenses included in the Answer. Paragraphs 1 through 11 of the Answer contain
Defendant’s responses to the assertions contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff challenges
paragraphs 1, and 4 through 11. Rule 8(b)(1) provides that an answer must “state in short and
plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it, and admit or deny the allegations
asserted against it by the opposing party.” Subsection (b)(5) instructs that if a party “lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation,” it “must so
state, and the statement has the effect of a denial.”
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s arguments and finds no basis to strike the Answer as
to these paragraphs. They each comply with the minimal pleading requirements set forth in Rule
8(b)(1). No evidence is required at the pleading state, and there is no requirement that Defendant
set forth its denials as to Plaintiff’s allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.8 The
purpose of the pleadings is to provide notice of each party’s position on the allegations involved
in the case to enable them to conduct discovery and make strategic decisions as to how to
proceed. The pleadings do not establish at this stage of the proceedings that any averments
therein are undisputed or material. To the extent either party seeks to litigate the merits of the
allegations, admissions, or denials set forth in the pleadings, they should do so through a
properly supported dispositive motion. Plaintiff’s arguments go to the merits of the claims and
defenses in this case, rather than to the sufficiency of the Answer under Rule 8. They are
insufficient to warrant striking the Answer, as he makes no showing of prejudice, nor that the
allegations have no possible relation to the controversy. Therefore, the motion to strike is denied
Rule 8(e) provides that pleadings are to be construed “so as to do justice.”
as to paragraphs 1 through 11.
Paragraphs 12 through 28 of the Answer contain Defendant’s affirmative and other
defenses. In the motion to strike, Plaintiff provides general denials and responses to these
paragraphs. The Court has reviewed these defenses and finds that they satisfy the requirement in
Rule 8(c) that Defendant “affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense.” “‘Rule
8(c)’s ultimate purpose is simply to guarantee that the opposing party has notice of any
additional issue that may be raised at trial so that he or she is prepared to properly litigate it.’”9
Defendant has stated each of its defenses with enough detail to provide Plaintiff notice that the
issue may be raised at trial. Plaintiff’s responses to each of these defenses are not well taken.
For example, he responds to the affirmative defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted by referring the Court to an exhibit to his Complaint. This is insufficient to put
this defense before the Court for adjudication, or to challenge the basis for this affirmative
defense. Likewise, Defendant states the defense that Plaintiff’s claims were not administratively
exhausted, to which Plaintiff responds that the Stipulation by the Bankruptcy Court provides
jurisdiction. This response does not call into question the sufficiency of Defendant’s responsive
pleading on this defense. To the extent jurisdiction or the sufficiency of a claim or defense is a
pretrial issue, it should be presented by Defendant through a dispositive motion, to which
Plaintiff may respond. Defendant is not required under Rule 8 to provide citations or record
evidence in support of the contentions in its pleading.
In short, the Court has reviewed the Answer and finds that it comports with the minimal
pleading requirements of Rule 8(b) and (c). While Plaintiff’s responses to the general denials
Eagle Well Serv., Inc. v. Central Power Sys. & Servs., Inc., No. 08-2184-CM, 2009 WL 2776878, at *1 (D.
Kan. Aug. 28, 2009) (quoting Creative Consumer Concepts, Inc. v. Kreisler, 563 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2009)).
and defenses are noted for the record, his motion to strike does not establish that any of the
challenged paragraphs are redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. Nor has Plaintiff
shown that the challenged statements are unrelated to this case, or are likely to cause prejudice.
The Answer fulfills the purpose of Rule 8 to put Plaintiff on notice as to whether Defendant
admits or denies the allegations set forth in the Complaint, and its defenses. The motion to strike
is therefore denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Portions of Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 43) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 12, 2013
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?