Webster v. Shinseki et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 11 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 07/02/2013. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
DANA W. WEBSTER,
Case No. 2:13-CV-95DAK
SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS ERIC K. SHINSEKI, et al.,
Judge Dale A. Kimball
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s lengthy Complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1). Rule 8 provides that a complaint must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and that “[e]ach allegation
must be simple, concise, and direct.” Id.
In this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks damages for discrimination and retaliation based
on Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. Although Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s Complaint is
too lengthy, Plaintiff argues that she is only attempting to provide “sufficient factual matter . . . to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
Plaintiff contends that his claims for age discrimination, hostile work environment, and
retaliation require him to set forth several facts in order to demonstrate the claims’ plausibility.
The court understands Plaintiff’s concerns with respect to recent clarifications regarding
the necessity of providing adequate factual support for claims. While Plaintiff’s Complaint is not
a model for pleading standards, it appears to be a good faith effort to meet the required standards.
In such a situation, the court is not inclined to strike the entire complaint. The court does not
believe that the allegations prejudice or harm Defendants in their ability to respond or move
forward with defending the case. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Complaint is DENIED.
DATED this 2d day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge
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?