Harmer et al v. Colom et al

Filing 49

ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the instant Motions (Docket Nos. 17, 37, 42, and 45) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 10/10/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

PETER S. HARMER, et ux
CHRISTINE C. HARMER,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

WILBUR O. COLOM and
THE COLOM LAW FIRM, LLC,
a Mississippi limited liability company,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 3:13-00286
) JUDGE SHARP /KNOWLES
)
) JURY DEMANDED
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the following four Motions to Strike filed by
Plaintiffs:
(1) “Plaintiff’s [sic] Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Docket No. 17);
(2) “Plaintiff’s [sic] Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss, Renewed Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 33) for Lack of Jurisdiction, Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 34), (Doc. 35)
Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May
Be Granted and (Doc. 36) Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 30) and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Doc. 31)
Filed by Defendant, The Colom Law Firm, LLC” (Docket No. 37);
(3) “Plaintiff’s [sic] Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Telephonic Hearing”
(Docket No. 42); and

(4) “Plaintiff’s [sic] Motion to Strike Defendants Motion to Stay Discovery and Initial
Disclosures” (Docket No. 45).
Motions to Strike are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), which states:
The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or
any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The
court may act:
(1) on its own; or
(2) on motion made by a party either before
responding to the pleading or, if a response is not
allowed, within 20 days after being served with the
pleading.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (emphasis added).
Motions to Strike are applicable only to pleadings. See Fox v. Michigan State Police
Dept., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 5019 (6th Cir.) at **5-6; Wimberly v. Clark Controller Co., 364
F.2d 225, 227 (6th Cir. 1966). See also Lombard v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 13 F. Supp.
2d 621, 625 (N.D. Ohio 1998); Hrubec v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 829 F. Supp. 1502,
1506 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
The foregoing documents Plaintiffs seek to strike are not pleadings, and they cannot be
stricken.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant Motions (Docket Nos. 17, 37, 42, and 45) are
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

E. Clifton Knowles
United States Magistrate Judge

2