Mason v. Invision LLC et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Motion Writ Of Execution (Docket No. 46) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Harold B. Mason's Motion For Writ Of Execution (Docket No. 42) is stricken from the record. Striking 42 Motion for Writ; Striking 42 Pro Se Motion; Granting 46 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles on 1/4/2013. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
HAROLD B. MASON,
Plaintiff,
v.
INVISION LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11CV575 FRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is defendants’ Motion To
Strike Plaintiff’s Motion Writ Of Execution.

(Docket No. 46). All

matters are pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge, with consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The instant Motion is directed at plaintiff Harold B.
Mason’s Motion For Writ Of Execution.

(Docket No. 42.)

In his

Motion, plaintiff seeks a “Writ of Execution of Judgment against S.
Eric Westacott with all other actions in regards to Timothy McMahon
and Ja’net Morgan.”

(Docket No. 42 at page 1).

Plaintiff seeks

the execution of judgment on his claims in the amount of $30,000.00
and punitive damages in the amount of $35,000.00, and also seeks
additional actual and punitive damages totaling $150,000.00.
In the instant Motion To Strike, defendants argue that
plaintiff’s Motion is legally meaningless, rendering them unable to
formulate a response.

This Court has liberal discretion to strike

pleadings under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which permits this Court to strike “an insufficient defense or any
- 1 -

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

BJC

Health System v. Columbia Cas. Co., 478 F.3d 908, 917 (8th Cir.
2007) (citing Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Cent. Mo. Elec. Coop., Inc.,
278 F.3d 742, 748 (8th Cir. 2001)).

Plaintiff has not obtained a

judgment upon which a Writ of Execution may be issued.

His Motion

For Writ of Execution is therefore impertinent and immaterial.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ Motion To Strike
Plaintiff’s Motion Writ Of Execution (Docket No. 46) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Harold B. Mason’s
Motion For Writ Of Execution (Docket No. 42) is stricken from the
record.

_______________________________
Frederick R. Buckles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 4th day of January, 2013.

- 2 -