More fundamentally, "the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not contemplate a combined answer and motion to dismiss." Quill Ink Books Ltd. v. ABCD Graphics & Design Inc., No. 18-920, 2019 WL 510461, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 8, 2019); Gambrel v. Knox Cnty., No. 17-184, 2018 WL 1457296, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 23, 2018) ("Rule 12(b) does not permit the concurrent filing of a motion to dismiss and an answer."); Hand v. Houk, No. 2:07-cv-846, 2008 WL 5378358, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2008) ("[Rule 12(b)] does not envision that a motion to dismiss will be combined with an answer."). When a defendant files a combined answer and Rule 12 motion, "the interests of justice are ... served by striking the improper filing altogether and directing that [the defendant] answer or otherwise respond by a date certain."

The Court agrees that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not contemplate a combined answer and motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (directing that a Rule 12(b) motion be filed, if at all, prior to the responsive pleading); see, e.g., Gambrel v. Knox Cty., Ky., No. 17-184-DLB, 2018 WL 1457296 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 23, 2018); Hand v. Houk, No. 2:07-cv-846, 2008 WL 5378358 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2008). A defendant must assert its Rule 12(b) defenses within its responsive pleading if it chooses not to first move the court for dismissal based upon those defenses; however, a defendant may not move the Court for dismissal based upon a Rule 12(b) defense within the responsive pleading itself.

Other courts have taken a stricter approach and dismissed untimely motions to dismiss. See, e.g., Hand v. Houk, No. 2:07-cv-846-SSB, 2008 WL 5378358, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2008) (denying Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because "[t]he Rule does not envision that a motion to dismiss will be combined with an answer"); BAC Home Loans Servicing LP v. Fall Oaks Farm LLC, 848 F. Supp. 2d 818, 822-23 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (denying a motion-to-dismiss component of defendant's answer as untimely and explaining that "[t]his strict approach presents no substantive prejudice ... because [defendant] can simply make its arguments post-answer through another mechanism that complies with the Civil Rules."). This Court, however, joins other courts that have favored a middle course, remedying the procedural deficiency by construing the post-answer motion to dismiss as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).

This Court aligns itself with those other courts that avoid such unguided acceptance of technical deviations by strictly honoring the language and structure of the Civil Rules. See, e.g., Hand v. Houk, No. 2:07–cv–846, 2008 WL 5378358, at *2 (S.D.Ohio Dec. 23, 2008) (denying Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss because “[t]he Rule does not envision that a motion to dismiss will be combined with an answer”). This strict approach presents no substantive prejudice here because Carlisle can simply make its arguments post-answer through another mechanism that complies with the Civil Rules.