Maxson v. Mosaic Sales Solutions Holding Company L.L.C.

Filing 95

ORDER that 64 Motion to Strike is DENIED; that 79 Motion to Strike is DENIED, and that 80 Motion for More Definite Statement is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/8/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14
15

KIMBERLY A. MAXSON,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
MOSAIC SALES SOLUTIONS US
)
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-02116-APG-NJK
ORDER

(Docket Nos. 64, 79, 80)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to strike. Docket No. 64. Also pending before the

17

Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike. Docket No. 79. Lastly pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion

18

for a more definite statement. Docket No. 80. The Court finds these motions properly resolved without

19

oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2.

20

I.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike

21

Defendant’s motion to strike asks the Court to strike various filings from the docket pursuant to

22

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 64 at 1. That rule, however, only relates

23

to striking matters from “pleadings.” See, e.g., United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Assurance Co. of Am., 2014 WL

24

4960915, *1 (D. Nev. June 4, 2014). Because the documents at issue in Defendant’s motion are not

25

pleadings, the motion to strike them is hereby DENIED.

26

//

27

//

28

//

1

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike

2

Plaintiff’s motion to strike asks the Court to strike Defendant’s opposition to one of her motions.

3

Docket No. 79 at 1 (seeking to strike Docket No. 74). For the same reason as discussed above, the motion

4

to strike is hereby DENIED because the opposition brief at issue is not a pleading.

5

III.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a More Definite Statement

6

Plaintiff’s motion for more definite statement seeks relief related to Defendant’s motion to dismiss

7

(Docket No. 54) and Defendant’s motion to strike (Docket No. 64). United States District Judge Andrew

8

P. Gordon has granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Docket No. 94, and the undersigned has denied

9

Defendant’s motion to strike as stated in Section I above. Accordingly, the motion for a more definite

10

statement is DENIED as moot.

11

IV.

Conclusion

12

For the reasons stated more fully above, Defendant’s motion to strike (Docket No. 64) is DENIED,

13

Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Docket No. 79) is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s motion for a more definite

14

statement (Docket No. 80) is DENIED as moot.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: March 8, 2016

17
18

________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2