Domai v. American Express et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 21 Motion to Strike 19 Memorandum in Opposition. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 1/2/14 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE

GUY M. DOMAI,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN EXPRESS, et al.,

Case No. 2:13-CV-567 TS

Defendants.

District Judge Ted Stewart

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. Plaintiff seeks to strike
the opposition Defendant filed in response to Plaintiff’s motion to continue the scheduling
conference. The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion to continue the scheduling
conference, which was held on December 11, 2013. The Court notes that Plaintiff failed to
appear at that hearing.
Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendant’s opposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(f). Rule 12(f) provides that the Court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or
any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”1 The Court has reviewed
Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to continue the scheduling conference and finds no
basis to strike that opposition. While Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant’s opposition,
Defendant is entitled to file an opposition under local rule DUCivR 7-1. If Plaintiff wishes to
make an argument in response to any opposition, the proper procedure is to file a reply brief
rather than a motion to strike.2

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

2

DUCivR 7-1.
1

The Court is cognizant of Plaintiff’s pro se status. However, such status does not relieve
Plaintiff of the obligation to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United
States District Court for the District of Utah Rules of Practice.3 It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Docket No. 21) is DENIED.
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

3

Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
2