Iron Workers District Council of Southern Ohio & Vicinity Benefit Trust et al v. Community Insurance Company
Filing
34
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER (Doc. No. 20 ). Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 1/28/2025. (srb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
IRON WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL
OF SOUTHERN OHIO & VICINITY
BENEFIT TRUST, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:23-cv-362
vs.
COMMUNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S
AMENDED ANSWER (Doc. No. 20)
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case is somewhat unusual in that Plaintiffs have filed a complaint to which
Defendant responded with an answer and an amended answer. Doc. Nos. 1, 9, 17. Plaintiffs later
filed, with leave of Court, a supplemental complaint, and Defendant responded with an answer. 1 Doc.
Nos. 26.; see Docket Entry Aug. 23, 2024.
The case is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendant’s amended answer
(Doc. No. 20), Defendant’s memorandum in opposition (Doc. No. 21), and Plaintiff’s reply (Doc. No.
22).
I.
Before reaching Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the amended answer, it is worth pausing to be
certain that their supplemental complaint did not moot their motion to strike. This concern arises due
to the general rule that “amended pleadings supersede original pleadings.” Hayward v. Cleveland
Clinic Found., 759 F.3d 601, 617 (6th Cir. 2014); cf. Doyle v. United States, No. 6:18-05, 2018 WL
With leave of court and on just terms, a party may “serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction,
occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).
1
1359048, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 16, 2018) (“[B]ecause the Supplemental Complaint also re-states the
same claims made in the original Complaint in full, the Supplemental Complaint will be considered
the operative pleading in this action”). If Plaintiffs’ supplemental complaint supersedes their original
complaint, see Hayward, 759 F.3d at 617, both the original complaint and Defendant’s amended
answer would become nullities, and Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendant’s amended answer would
be moot. See id. (“‘Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs
any function in the case[.]’” (citation omitted)).
However, Plaintiffs’ supplemental complaint does not supersede their original complaint.
Plaintiffs explained in their unopposed motion to file a supplemental complaint that their original
complaint remains their operative pleading, and their supplemental complaint addresses two alleged
transactions, occurrences, or events that occurred after the date they filed their original complaint.
Doc. No. 25 at PageID 241-42, 259-63. Plaintiffs’ explanation supports the conclusion both the
original complaint and Defendant’s amended answer remain at issue. Cf. Roddy v. Grand Trunk
Western R.R. Inc., 395 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[P]laintiff is the master of his complaint”).
Review of Plaintiffs’ supplemental complaint confirms their view that it truly supplements their
original complaint, most notably because the supplemental complaint does not seek to voluntarily
dismiss any portion of their original complaint.
The upshot of this is that Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the amended answer challenges a pleading
still at issue in this case. 2 Consequently, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is ripe for decision.
II.
This court may “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2). Caution is warranted, however, because
Plaintiffs’ original complaint and supplemental complaint are Plaintiffs’ operative pleadings. Defendant’s
amended answer to the original complaint and answer to the supplemental complaint are Defendant’s operative
pleadings.
2
2
“[m]otions to strike are viewed with disfavor and are not frequently granted.” Operating Eng’rs Loc.
324 Health Care Plan v. G & W Constr. Co., 783 F.3d 1045, 1050 (6th Cir. 2015). “The function of
the motion is to ‘avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious
issues by dispensing with’ them early in the case. Id. (quoting Kennedy v. City of Cleveland, 797
F.2d 297, 305 (6th Cir. 1986)).
Plaintiffs identify various problems presented by the timing and content of Defendants’
amended answer. See Doc. No. 20 at PageID 167-69. Yet, nothing in Defendant’s amended answer
constitutes “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2). As
to a possible “insufficient defense,” id., the differences Plaintiffs identify between Defendant’s
answer and amended answer, see Doc. No. 20 at PageID 168-69; Doc. No. 22 at 194-95, concern one
or more issues the parties should litigate through the discovery and summary-judgment stages of this
case, rather than at the pleading stage. Doing so will better serve the truth-seeking function advanced
by the crucible of litigation and will not require the parties to waste time and money on spurious
issues.
Lastly, assuming, arguendo, Plaintiffs are correct to point out that Defendant should have
obtained leave of Court before filings its amended answer, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), moving past
this problem in the present circumstances will not prejudice Plaintiffs’ ability to litigate their case.
III.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendant’s amended answer is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 28, 2025
s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?