Dartez v. Lazar et al
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 10 Motion to Strike 15 Answer to Complaint, Answer to Amended Complaint; denying 16 Motion to Strike 8 Answer to Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 04/27/2016. (crt,Thomas, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
ALTON DARTEZ
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-2225
VERSUS
:
JUDGE MINALDI
MORRIS LAZAR ET AL.
:
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court are two Motions to Strike [docs. 10, 16] filed by plaintiff Alton Dartez
(“plaintiff”) relating to the Answers to Amended Complaint [docs. 8, 15] filed by defendants
America’s Pizza Company, LLC (“APC”) and Morris Lazar (“Lazar”) (collectively,
“defendants”). The plaintiff asks this court to strike certain defenses raised by the defendants in
their answers to his amended complaint.
I.
BACKGROUND
This suit arises from the defendants’ alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq., by failing to make a Pizza Hut in Jennings,
Louisiana, wheelchair accessible. Doc. 5, pp. 1–6. Both defendants have answered the complaint
and the plaintiff challenges several statements in both answers. The ones at issue in APC’s
answer are 1:
1. To the extent that the plaintiff is asserting any claims untimely and
beyond the applicable statute of limitations period, Defendant asserts
1
The plaintiff challenged two additional defenses but withdrew these claims in his reply. See Doc. 14, p. 4; doc. 20,
p. 1.
-1-
the affirmative defenses statute of limitations. Moreover, Defendant
asserts the defenses of estoppel and waiver.
2. To the extent that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust applicable
administrative remedies for any and all of the claims asserted and to the
extent that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required, Defendant
asserts the defenses of prematurity and failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Defendant also assets the affirmative defenses of estoppel and
waiver. Additionally, Defendant asserts the defense of want of amicable
demand and notice.
3. Defendant asserts that it is not liable or responsible for any alleged
actions caused by others.
4. Defendant asserts that the property at issue is an exempt and/or
grandfathered property and, thus, not subject to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the regulations and/or the standards as asserted by
Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or Plaintiff has
failed to state, as a matter of law, a cognizable claim for relief and cause
of action.
5. Defendant asserts that, at all times, it has acted in good faith.
6. Defendant reserves the right to supplement and amend its defenses to
assert additional affirmative defenses and other defenses and objections
in this lawsuit.
Doc. 8, pp. 1–3; see Doc. 10, att. 1, p. 1 (list of defenses challenged in plaintiff’s Motion to Strike).
Contested within Lazar’s answer are several of the above defenses in addition to the following:
7. Mr. Lazar asserts any and all statutory defenses, requirements, elements
and legal burdens of proof under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
as amended, and under any and all applicable regulations promulgated
thereto or thereunder. Mr. Lazar further asserts any and all statutory
requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended,
and any other regulations pursuant thereto or related thereto.
Doc. 15, pp. 1–3; see Doc. 16, att. 1, p. 1 (list of defenses challenged in plaintiff’s Motion to
Strike).
II.
LAW & ANALYSIS
The plaintiff moves to strike the above defenses pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. That rule provides that the court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient
-2-
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)
(emphasis added). Strikes are thus left to the district court’s “ample discretion.” In re Beef Indus.
Antitrust Litig., 600 F.2d 1148, 1168 (5th Cir. 1979).
Striking part of a pleading is a “drastic remedy.” FDIC v. Niblo, 821 F.Supp. 441, 449
(N.D. Tex. 1993). As the defendants point out, such motions are disfavored and only appropriate
“when the pleading to be stricken has no possible relation to the controversy.” Florance v.
Buchmeyer, 500 F.Supp.2d 618, 645 (N.D. Tex. 2007). Accordingly, they generally are only
granted when it is shown “that the allegations being challenged are so unrelated to plaintiff’s
claims as to be unworthy of any consideration as a defense and that their presence in the pleading
throughout the proceeding will be prejudicial to the moving party.” Niblo, 821 F.Supp. at 449
(emphasis added).
The plaintiff asserts that the above defenses are legally insufficient, impertinent, and/or
redundant, and that he is prejudiced in various ways by their presence in the instant suit. After
considering each of his claims, we find that he has not satisfied both prongs with respect to any
challenged statement and is therefore not entitled to the drastic remedy of a strike.
III.
CONCLUSION
For reasons stated above, the Motions to Strike [docs. 10, 16] are DENIED.
THUS DONE this 27th day of April, 2016.
-3-
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?