From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Skolnik

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Oct 25, 2011
3:10-cv-00162-LRH-VPC (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2011)

Opinion

3:10-cv-00162-LRH-VPC

10-25-2011

CHRISTOPHER A. JONES, Plaintiff, v. HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al., Defendants.

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING


MINUTES OF THE COURT

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE . U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:LISA MANN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:

Plaintiff filed a motion to strike information in defendants' reply (#54). Defendants opposed the motion (#57) and plaintiff replied (#59). In his reply, plaintiff also moved to strike defendants' opposition to the original motion to strike (#58). Defendants opposed (#60) and plaintiff replied (#63). Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a surreply (#64) and plaintiff opposed (#68).

This is a duplicate image of #58.

Plaintiff moves to strike information in defendants' reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a court "may strike from a pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Only pleadings are subject to motions to strike. Id.; Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a), "pleadings" include complaints, answers, replies to counterclaims, answers to cross-claims, third-party complaints, and third-party answers. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Accordingly, a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) is not the proper procedural method to seek exclusion of information contained within a reply to a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's motion to strike is DENIED (#54). Plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' opposition (#58) and defendants' motion for leave to file a surreply (#64) are DENIED as moot.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to strike (#54) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to strike (#58) defendants' opposition and defendants' motion for leave to file a surreply (#64) are DENIED as moot.

LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:____

Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Jones v. Skolnik

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Oct 25, 2011
3:10-cv-00162-LRH-VPC (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2011)
Case details for

Jones v. Skolnik

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER A. JONES, Plaintiff, v. HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Oct 25, 2011

Citations

3:10-cv-00162-LRH-VPC (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2011)