Patton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 42

ORDER Denying 36 Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 10/04/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

MARGARET PATTON,
Plaintiff,

6
7

vs.

8

2:12–cv–02142–GMN–VCF

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

ORDER
Defendant.

9
10

Before the court is Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s

11
12

Argument (#361). Plaintiff Margaret Patton filed an Opposition (#38); and Wal-Mart replied (#39).

13

Wal-Mart’s motion to strike is denied. Wal-Mart asks the court to strike an argument from

14

Patton’s reply brief (#34), which concerns Patton’s pending motion for sanctions (#26), because the

15

argument was not previously raised and, purportedly, is waived. (See Def.’s Mot. to Strike (#36) at 2).

16

Wal-Mart makes this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

17

Rule 12(f) provides, “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any

18

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f) (emphasis added).

19

Reply briefs are not pleadings. See FED. R. CIV. P. 7(a); see also 5C WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL

20

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE 1380 & n. 8.5 (3d ed. 2012) (“Rule 12(f) motions only may be directed

21

towards pleadings as defined by Rule 7(a); thus motions, affidavits, briefs, and other documents outside

22

of the pleadings are not subject to Rule 12(f).”)

23
24
25

1

Parenthetical citations refer to the court’s docket.

1

1

The court notes that is has inherent authority to strike a party’s papers and motions. See Metzger

2

v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110 (D. Nev. 1988) (Chief Judge Reed). However, the court declines

3

to exercise that authority at this time and will reconsider Wal-Mart’s concern when the court addresses

4

Patton’s motion for sanctions (#34).

5

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,

6

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s

7

Argument (#36) is DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED this 4th day of October, 2013.

10
11

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2