Opinion
Civil Action No. 09-cv-00309-MSK-KMT
03-12-2012
SUZANNE SHELL, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FAMILY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION, LEONARD HENDERSON, FAMILIES AT RISK DEFENSE ALLIANCE, FRANCINE RENEE CYGAN, MARK CYGAN, ILLINOIS FAMILY ADVOCACY COALITION, GEORGIA FAMILY RIGHTS, INC., DENNIS HINGER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY ADVOCATES, CONNECTICUT DCF WATCH, ANN DURAND, BRENDA SWALLOW, KATHY TILLEY, RANDALL BLAIR, LLOYD PHILLIPS, DESERE' CLABO aka HOWARD, and UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS DOE 1-15, Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
ORDER
This matter is before the court on "Defendant Swallow's Motion to Strike Plaintiff Shell's Response to Defendant Blair'[s] Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim" (Doc. No. 613, filed March 8, 2012).
Federal Rule of Procedure 12(f) provides that "[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (emphasis added). Motions and other papers are not pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 7. "[T]here is no provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for motions to strike motions and memoranda." Searcy v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 91-4181, 1992 WL 43490, at *2, (10th Cir. March 2, 1992)(unpublished). "Only material included in a 'pleading' may be the subject of a motion to strike, and courts have been unwilling to construe the term broadly. Motions, briefs, or memoranda, objections, or affidavits may not be attacked by the motion to strike." 2 JAMES WM. MOORE ET.AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 12.37[2] (3d ed. 2004) (cited with approval in Searcy). Plaintiff's "Objection" (Doc. No. 18) is not a pleading that may be the subject of a motion to strike.
Accordingly on "Defendant Swallow's Motion to Strike Plaintiff Shell's Response to Defendant Blair'[s] Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim" (Doc. No. 613) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
____________
Kathleen M. Tafoya
United States Magistrate Judge