United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
W. deGRAVELLES JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion
to Strike. (Doc. 32.) The motion is
unopposed. Additionally, the Tennessee Coalition to End
Domestic and Sexual Violence (“the Tennessee
Coalition”) has filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). (Doc.
18.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike is GRANTED and the
Tennessee Coalition's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED
Paul Dan Scheppf (“Plaintiff”) initiated this
action by filing a complaint and motion to intervene on
behalf of a minor child, KJS. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that
KJS, born in 2006 in the Republic of Angola, is his natural
and legal daughter. (Docs. 1 at 3; 13 at 1.) Among others,
Plaintiff named as a defendant the Tennessee Coalition, a
nonprofit organization registered and operating in Tennessee.
November 15, 2016, the Tennessee Coalition filed a motion to
dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). (Doc. 18.) The following
day, the Court issued a briefing schedule, allowing Plaintiff
to file an opposition within twenty-one (21) days, not to
exceed ten (10) pages in length, allowed the Tennessee
Coalition to file a five-page reply within fourteen (14) days
of the filing of the opposition, and noted the Tennessee
Coalition need not seek leave of court to file its reply.
(Doc. 19.) It further stated, “Sur-Reply briefs will be
permitted only with leave of Court for extraordinary reasons
supported by sufficient facts.” (Id.)
January 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed his memorandum in
opposition. (Doc. 20.) On February 1, 2017, Defendant filed a
motion to strike Plaintiff's opposition, arguing that it
failed to comply with Local Rules 7(f) and 7(g) and lamented
that Plaintiff's opposition was “43 days late and
18 meandering pages too long without any showing of good
cause or the required Leave of Court.” (Doc. 21 at 1.)
Conscious of the fact that Plaintiff is a pro se litigant
with no legal background, the Court denied the Tennessee
Coalition's motion to strike on February 2, 2017. (Doc.
23.) The Tennessee Coalition then filed its reply brief.
February 22, 2017, Plaintiff attempted to file a sur-reply,
captioned as “Opposition and Response to Reply
Memorandum in Response”. (Doc. 26.) Despite the mandate
of the briefing schedule, Plaintiff did not seek leave of
court to file his sur-reply. On February 24, 2017, the
Tennessee Coalition filed a Motion to Strike Doc. 26
“on the grounds that the filing disregards this
Court's Briefing Schedule and Local Rules 7(f) and 7(g).
[Plaintiff's] Surreply was filed without any showing of
good cause or the required Leave of Court and is ten (10)
pages long - double the permissible length, when permitted at
all.” (Doc. 27 at 1.) Through an Order issued on
February 27, 2017 (Doc. 28), the Court granted the Tennessee
Coalition's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's sur-reply.
Plaintiff did not seek leave of court to re-file his
sur-reply, nor did he contest the granting of the Tennessee
Coalition's motion to strike.
6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion captioned as a Motion to
Strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f),
seeking to dismiss without prejudice the Tennessee Coalition
as a party to the litigation, or in the alternative, to
strike all claims against the Tennessee Coalition in his
initial and amended complaint. (Doc. 32 at 1.) Plaintiff
alleges that in light of the Court's striking his
sur-reply from the record, he “now [has] no reasonable
chance to legally prevail against the Tennessee Coalition in
this litigation and any further litigation against the
Tennessee Coalition would be immaterial under Rule 12(f);
would be frivolous, impede judicial efficiency and cause an
economic and judicial disservice to this Court and to the
Tennessee Coalition.” (Id. at 2.)
12(f) states that the court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent or other scandalous matter. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f);
see also Clewis v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 578
Fed. App'x 469, 470 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2014). In light of
Plaintiff's admission that his claims against the
Tennessee Coalition are “immaterial under Rule
12(f)”, the Court grants his motion to strike the
Tennessee Coalition from the complaint.
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike (Doc. 32) is GRANTED and that all claims against
the Tennessee Coalition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Tennessee Coalition's Motion
to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and
12(b)(6) (Doc. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT.
 To protect the identity of the minor
child, the Court will refer to her only by her
 Although the Motion is captioned as a
Motion to Strike pursuant to Rule 12(f), the substance of
Plaintiff's motion reveals that the relief he seeks is
actually couched in Rule 12(b), as he admits that he cannot
allege a valid claim against Defendant upon which relief can
be granted. Notwithstanding this discrepancy, the outcome ...