Plaintiff cites no authority for his position. ECF No. 33 at 2-3 (quoting W. Lumber, LLC v. Burke-Parsons-Bowlby, Corp., No. 4:09-CV-52, 2011 WL 144926, at *3) (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 18, 2011) (emphasis added)). The Court finds the order of dismissal was clear—Counts II and III are dismissed with prejudice, and if Plaintiff wanted to amend Count I of his Complaint to address the deficiencies noted in the order, he needed to do so within 14 days of the order.

" "[C]ourts have found the resubmission of previously-dismissed counts to be immaterial." West Lumber, LLC v. Burke-Parsons-Bowlby, Corp., 2011 WL 144926, *3 (E.D.Tenn.2011)(citing Paul M. Harrod Co. v. A.B. Dick Co., 194 F.Supp. 502, 504 (D.C.Ohio 1961)). Further, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs did not obtain leave to file claims in the amended complaint outside of the parameters of the District Court's order. Nonetheless, because the reasserted claims (like the remainder of the amended pleading allegations) are dismissible on their merits, the motion to strike can be dismissed as moot. Andrews v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 160 F.3d 304, 307, fn 3 (6th Cir. 1998); Bowser v. Bogdanovic, 2010 WL 1462548, *3 (M.D.Pa.2010)(despite the existence of grounds for striking, amended complaint "more properly dismissed on its merits"); Accelecare Wound Centers, Inc. v. Bank of New York, 2009 WL 1227487, *5 (S.D.N.Y.2009)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f))(granting a motion to strike unnecessary where claims "are being dismissed on their merits").