ORDER AND OPINION

[Re: Motion at docket 22]

JOHN W. SEDWICK, Senior District Judge.

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 22, Plaintiff moves to strike defendant Rockford's counterclaim. Rockford responds at docket 23. Plaintiff replies at docket 25. Oral argument was not requested and would not aid the court.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges in its Complaint that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded the prime contract to construct a replacement fueling station at Tinker Air Force Base to Rockford. Rockford purchased a Miller Act payment bond from Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Rockford subcontracted the pavement work on the project to J&L Paving LLC. ("J&L"). Plaintiff further alleges that J&L completed the pavement work, but when it submitted its final application to be paid, Rockford did not pay all of what was owed.1 Plaintiff seeks to recover the money it alleges should be paid. Count One of the Complaint alleges a breach of contract by Rockford. Count Two seeks recovery based on the theory of quantum meruit. Count Three seeks to recover on the payment bond.

Rockford's Answer denies that J&L performed its subcontract obligations and asserts that "J&L breached the subcontract on numerous occasions. . . .2 Rockford's Counterclaim seeks a declaration that J&L materially breached the subcontract so that Rockford owes nothing to J&L. The Counterclaim mirrors Rockford's defense to Plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim that it was J&L which breached the subcontract. The Counterclaim raises no issue not raised in the Answer. It merely recasts the defense that J&L breached the subcontract in the form of a counterclaim. In sum, the Counterclaim is redundant and unnecessary.

Plaintiff's briefing demonstrates that allowing the Counterclaim to go forward would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings in this case. Mindful of the admonition in Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 to construe and apply the civil rules "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding," the court concludes that the Counterclaim should be stricken.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER

For the reasons above, the motion at docket 22 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Rockford shall file an Amended Answer which does not include a counterclaim within 7 days.