Maxson v. Mosaic Sales Solutions U.S. Operating Co.

Full title: KIMBERLY A. MAXSON, Plaintiff(s), v. MOSAIC SALES SOLUTIONS US OPERATING…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Mar 8, 2016

Case No. 2:14-cv-02116-APG-NJK (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. 2:14-cv-02116-APG-NJK

03-08-2016

KIMBERLY A. MAXSON, Plaintiff(s), v. MOSAIC SALES SOLUTIONS US OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant(s).

NANCY J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER

(Docket Nos. 64, 79, 80)

Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to strike. Docket No. 64. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to strike. Docket No. 79. Lastly pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a more definite statement. Docket No. 80. The Court finds these motions properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2.

I. Defendant's Motion to Strike

Defendant's motion to strike asks the Court to strike various filings from the docket pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 64 at 1. That rule, however, only relates to striking matters from "pleadings." See, e.g., United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Assurance Co. of Am., 2014 WL 4960915, *1 (D. Nev. June 4, 2014). Because the documents at issue in Defendant's motion are not pleadings, the motion to strike them is hereby DENIED. // // //

II. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike

Plaintiff's motion to strike asks the Court to strike Defendant's opposition to one of her motions. Docket No. 79 at 1 (seeking to strike Docket No. 74). For the same reason as discussed above, the motion to strike is hereby DENIED because the opposition brief at issue is not a pleading.

III. Plaintiff's Motion for a More Definite Statement

Plaintiff's motion for more definite statement seeks relief related to Defendant's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 54) and Defendant's motion to strike (Docket No. 64). United States District Judge Andrew P. Gordon has granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, Docket No. 94, and the undersigned has denied Defendant's motion to strike as stated in Section I above. Accordingly, the motion for a more definite statement is DENIED as moot.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated more fully above, Defendant's motion to strike (Docket No. 64) is DENIED, Plaintiff's motion to strike (Docket No. 79) is DENIED, and Plaintiff's motion for a more definite statement (Docket No. 80) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2016

/s/_________

NANCY J. KOPPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE