Raynor v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying 67 Motion to Strike 64 Amended Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 1/3/18. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:17-cv-00160-FDW-DSC
E. RAY RAYNOR,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc.’s
Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 67).
The Court incorporates the background set forth in its Order on Defendant G4S Secure
Solutions (USA), Inc.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 63) herein. In
that January 2, 2018 Order (Doc. No. 63), the Court granted the motion to strike and ordered
Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint consistent with the motion to amend complaint to conform
to evidence granted by the Court. The Court further stated:
Plaintiff’s failure to timely file the amended complaint or filing of an amended
complaint that includes amendments beyond those set forth in Exhibit 3 of
Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to conform to evidence shall be deemed a
waiver of his right to file an amended complaint consistent with the Court’s
December 18, 2016 leave. Any additional amendment or later amendments require
further leave of the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
(Doc. No. 63 at 3). Plaintiff timely filed an Amended Complaint on January 2, 2018 (Doc. No.
64). Subsequently on January 2, 2018, G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (“G4S”) moved for
judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 65). The Court denied G4S’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Text Only Order denying Doc. No. 65, Jan. 3, 2018). Then, on January 3, 2018, G4S

moved to strike the Amended Complaint filed on January 2, 2018. G4S argues that Plaintiff has
violated the Court’s January 2, 2018 Order by including an “Amended Statement of Facts
Confirming to Recent Discovered Evidence” and modifications in paragraph 12 and the prayer for
relief that were not included in Exhibit 3 of Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to conform to
evidence (Doc. No. 43-3). (Doc. No. 67 at 3-4).
Rule 12(f) of the Civil Rules of Procedure allow a party to move to strike a pleading “either
before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed within 21 days after being served
with the pleading.” As G4S filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings of the Amended
Complaint filed on January 2, 2018 before moving to strike, G4S has responded to the pleading
before moving to strike. The Court also has already addressed G4S’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings and concluded that Plaintiff has plead plausible causes of action against G4S and that
there are material questions of fact to be resolved. Thus, the motion to strike the Amended
Complaint filed on January 2, 2018 is untimely, and striking the Amended Complaint would not
advance the progress of litigation, see 2-12 Moore’s Federal Practice § 12.37 ( Matthew Bender
3d. Ed.). In light of this, the Court declines to address whether the Amended Complaint filed on
January 2, 2018 failed to comply with the Court’s Order. Therefore, the Court DENIES G4S’s
motion to strike the Amended Complaint filed on January 2, 2018 (Doc. No. 67).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 3, 2018

2