Principle Life Insurance Company v. Johnson

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER DENYING 7 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Insufficient Answer. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 10/20/14. (jf2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY
Plaintiff
v.
KARL JOHNSON
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Case No.: RWT 14cv1123

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Principal Life Insurance Company filed a six-count Complaint on
April 10, 2014, essentially alleging insurance fraud by Defendant Karl Johnson. ECF No. 1. On
May 8, 2014, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed an Answer, in the form of a letter addressed to
Plaintiff, generally denying the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint.

ECF No. 4.

Specifically, Defendant asserts that he “do[es] not owe Principal Life money,” that he is “unable
to return to work on a full time basis,” and states that the “statements made in the lawsuit…are
false.” Id. He also briefly states his version of events in connection with the factual allegations
in the Complaint. Id.
Plaintiff has moved to strike the answer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)
because Defendant failed to respond to each claim asserted in the Complaint and to adequately
admit or deny the allegations in the Complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(b). ECF No. 7 at 2. Plaintiff also points out that Defendant’s Answer does not have
a caption as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a). Id.

Rule 12(f) provides that a “court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or
any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Recognizing that Defendant is
proceeding pro se and that “Rule 12(f) motions are generally viewed with disfavor because
striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy,” Waste Mgmt. Holdings v. Gilmore,
252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court will deny
Plaintiff’s motion.
There are no grounds to strike the Answer because Defendant has failed to caption it
appropriately. It was docketed as an answer in this case, and Plaintiff is fully aware it should be
treated as such. Nor does the Court consider the answer substantively insufficient, particularly
given the leeway that must be given pro se litigants. Defendant has not specifically admitted or
denied, paragraph by paragraph, each and every factual statement in the Complaint, but he
clearly denies that he owes Plaintiff money or misrepresented himself.

A fair reading of

Defendant’s Answer is more than sufficient to alert Plaintiff as to how he responds to the
allegations. While the Court will not allow a litigant’s pro se status and ignorance of procedural
rules prejudice another party, the Court will also not grant unnecessary relief for each and every
pro se litigant’s procedural foot fault. “Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). No justice is done by striking Defendant’s Answer.
Accordingly, it is this 20th day of October, 2014, by the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland,
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Insufficient Answer
[ECF No. 7] is DENIED.

/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2