Thomas v. Briggs, 15-10210. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20181004g63
Visitors: 29
Filed: Oct. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES LINDA V. PARKER , District Judge . On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, pro se, against Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On September 13, 2018 — over three and a half years later, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff moves the Court to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f); however, 12(f) requires that a mot
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES LINDA V. PARKER , District Judge . On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, pro se, against Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On September 13, 2018 — over three and a half years later, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff moves the Court to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f); however, 12(f) requires that a moti..
More
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
LINDA V. PARKER, District Judge.
On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, pro se, against Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On September 13, 2018 — over three and a half years later, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff moves the Court to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f); however, 12(f) requires that a motion to strike be made "within 21 days after being served with the pleading." Plaintiff's motion has far exceeded this deadline and, therefore, is denied as untimely. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
