Peters v. AZEK Corp.

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 33 MOTION for Judgment and 40 MOTION to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C Carlson on 3/6/25. (rw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNNY PETERS,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
AZEK, CORP.,
Defendant.

Civil No. 3:23-CV-2160

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.

Factual and Procedural Background
This pro se employment discrimination case comes before us for the

consideration of several pending motions. These motions are filed at an early stage
in this case shortly after the entry of a case management order governing the
schedule of this litigation.
First, Mr. Peters, who is representing himself in this case, has filed a motion
captioned as a motion for judgment, which appears to seek a judgment on the
plaintiff’s behalf at the outset of this litigation. (Doc. 33). This motion, and its
accompanying brief, (Doc. 34), rely upon Mr. Peters’ description of workplace
events to request the entry of a judgment in his favor against the defendant.
Azek Corporation, the defendant in this lawsuit, has also filed a motion to
strike several filings submitted by Mr. Peters, including supplements to the case
1

management plan and the plaintiff’s reply to the defendant’s answer to the
complaint. (Doc. 40). This motion also invites us to require Mr. Peters to obtain
permission prior to filing any further pleadings. (Id.)
As discussed in greater detail below, we will DENY these motions in order to
allow the parties to proceed with their litigation in accordance with the case
management order previously entered by the Court.
II.

Discussion
A.

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Will Be Denied.

At the outset, we note that Mr. Peters has filed a pleading styled as a motion
for judgment, which we construe as a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 33). In
this motion, Mr. Peters provides his perspective on what took place during his
employment and asks that we enter a judgment on his behalf based upon his account
of events.
While we applaud this initiative, the rules that govern summary judgment
motions will not permit us to find in favor of any arty at this time. Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs summary judgment practice and provides
that the court shall only grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Through summary adjudication, a court is
empowered to dispose of those claims that do not present a “genuine dispute as to
2

any material fact,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), and for which a trial would be “an empty
and unnecessary formality.” Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 702
F.Supp.2d 465, 468 (M.D. Pa. 2010). The substantive law identifies which facts are
material, and “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit
under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a
material fact is genuine only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis that would allow
a reasonable fact finder to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id., at 248-49.
The moving party has the initial burden of identifying evidence that it believes
shows an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec.
& Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004). Once the moving party has shown
that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s claims, “the
non-moving party must rebut the motion with facts in the record and cannot rest
solely on assertions made in the pleadings, legal memoranda, or oral argument.”
Berckeley Inv. Group. Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 201 (3d Cir. 2006), accord
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). If the non-moving party “fails
to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden at trial,” summary
judgment is appropriate. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Summary judgment is also
appropriate if the non-moving party provides merely colorable, conclusory, or
3

speculative evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. There must be more than a scintilla
of evidence supporting the non-moving party and more than some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts. Id., at 252; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). However, in making this
determination, the Court must “consider all evidence in the light most favorable to
the party opposing the motion.” A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Schs., 486 F.3d 791, 794
(3d Cir. 2007).
Judged by these guideposts, Mr. Peters’ motion is premature since the parties
have not completed all of their factual discovery. Moreover, recognizing that the
Court must consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing
the motion, it is evident that Azek disputes many of the facts alleged by Mr. Peters.
Therefore, these disputed issues of fact prevent us from entering judgment on behalf
of any party at this time.
Finally, Mr. Peters is advised that parties seeking summary judgment must
also comply with Local Rule 56.1, which provides as follows:
LR 56.1 Motions for Summary Judgment.
A motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.56, shall
be accompanied by a separate, short and concise statement of the
material facts, in numbered paragraphs, as to which the moving party
contends there is no genuine issue to be tried.
The papers opposing a motion for summary judgment shall include a
separate, short and concise statement of the material facts, responding
to the numbered paragraphs set forth in the statement required in the
4

foregoing paragraph, as to which it is contended that there exists a
genuine issue to be tried.
Statements of material facts in support of, or in opposition to, a motion
shall include references to the parts of the record that support the
statements.
All material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the
moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the
statement required to be served by the opposing party.
LR 56.1.
Mr. Peters is advised that the Court “may deny a motion for summary
judgment for failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1.” Hickey v. Merritt-Scully, No.
4:18-CV-01793, 2021 WL 949448, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2021). Therefore,
compliance with this rule will be necessary in the event that Mr. Peters seeks
summary judgment at any time in the future.
B.

The Defendant’s Motion to Strike Will Be Denied.

In addition, Azek has submitted a motion to strike several filings submitted
by Mr. Peters, including supplements to the case management plan and the plaintiff’s
reply to the defendant’s answer to the complaint. (Doc. 40). This motion also invites
us to require Mr. Peters to obtain permission prior to filing any further pleadings.
(Id.)
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to strike
pleadings and provides, in part, that:

5

(f) Motion to Strike. The court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.
F. R.Civ. P., Rule 12(f).
While rulings on motions to strike rest in the sound discretion of the court,
Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 657 F.Supp. 1134, 1146 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), that discretion
is guided by certain basic principles. Because striking a pleading is viewed as a
drastic remedy, such motions are “generally disfavored.” Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1057 (C.A.La.,
1982). As one court has aptly observed: “striking a party's pleadings is an extreme
measure, and, as a result, . . . ‘[m]otions to strike under Fed .R.Civ.P. 12(f) are
viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.’” Stanbury Law Firm v. I.R.S.,
221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221,
229 (8th Cir.1977); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gibson, 829 F.Supp. 1103, 1106
(W.D.Mo.1993); 2 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ' 12.37[1] (3d
ed. 2000)). In practice, courts should exercise this discretion and strike pleadings
only when those pleadings are both “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous” and prejudicial to the opposing party. Ruby v. Davis Foods, Inc., 269
F.3d 818, 820 (7th Cir. 2001).
In this case we agree that Mr. Peters’ case management plan and supplement,
as well as his reply to the defendant’s answer to the complaint, were not necessary
6

pleadings. Because we have entered a case management order, it is not necessary to
file further case management plans at this time. We will request further planning
proposals from counsel if we deem it to be helpful. In addition, we agree that once a
complaint and answer have been filed there is no need for the plaintiff to file a reply
to the answer. However, while we find these filings to be unnecessary, we do not
believe that they are both “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” and
prejudicial to the opposing party. Ruby v. Davis Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818, 820 (7th
Cir. 2001). Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion we will deny the request to
strike these filings.
We will also decline Azek’s request that we require Mr. Peters to obtain the
Court’s permission prior to filing any documents. While we have the power to enter
such pre-filing injunctions, that authority should only be used in extreme cases.
Thus:
[A] pattern of “groundless and vexatious litigation” will justify an order
prohibiting further filings without the court's permission. Chipps v.
U.S.D.C. for the M.D. Pa., 882 F.2d 72, 73 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing
Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81 (3d Cir.1987); In re Oliver, 682
F.2d at 445)). “A pre-filing injunction is an exception to the general
rule of free access to the courts and its use against a pro se plaintiff
must be approached with caution.” Grossberger v. Ruane, 535 F. App'x
84, 86 (3d Cir. 2013). Therefore, any such injunction must “be narrowly
tailored and sparingly used.” In re Packer Ave. Assocs., 884 F.2d 745,
747 (3d Cir. 1989).

7

Fink v. Bishop, No. 23-0566, 2024 WL 863300, at *6 (D.N.J. Feb. 29, 2024), aff'd,
No. 24-1581, 2024 WL 4449746 (3d Cir. July 29, 2024), cert. denied sub nom. Fink
v. Stanzione, No. 24-665, 2025 WL 581631 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2025).
In this case, we recognize that we should liberally construe Mr. Peters’ pro se
pleadings. And while some of his filings have not been necessary, they do not strike
us as so vexatious or improper that we should deviate from the general rule favoring
free access to the courts. Therefore, this request will also be denied.
An appropriate order follows.

S/Martin C. Carlson
MARTIN C. CARLSON
United States Magistrate Judge
DATED: March 6, 2025

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNNY PETERS,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
AZEK, CORP.,
Defendant.

Civil No. 3:23-CV-2160

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of March 2025, in accordance with the accompanying
Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for judgment, (Doc. 33),
and the defendant’s motion to strike, (Doc. 40), are DENIED.

S/Martin C. Carlson
MARTIN C. CARLSON
United States Magistrate Judge

9