SHONTE PAGE
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, HEART OF FLORIDA HEALTH CENTER, INC., JENNIFER K. ABERNATHY, D.O.; ELVIRA S. MERCADO, M.D.; AND THE UCF OCALA FAMILY MEDICINE RESIDENCY PROGRAM
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses was due to be denied because it lacked the required certification under Local Rule 3.01(g).
[1] Motions to strike affirmative defenses are subject to the certification requirement of Local Rule 3.01(g) requiring good-faith communication between counsel, and such mot…
[2] Affirmative defenses that amount to denials should be treated as specific denials rather than stricken from a pleading.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the term 'communicate' has been defined as 'to speak to each other in person or by telephone, in a good faith attempt to resolve disputed issues.'”
The court explained the meaning and purpose of the communication requirement in Local Rule 3.01(g).
Plaintiff filed a motion to strike affirmative defenses asserted by a defendant. The court reviewed the motion and found it deficient.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Strike Affirmative Defenses cases and more on FLexlaw
This removal action alleging medical malpractice is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's motion to strike all affirmative defenses asserted by Defendant University of Central Florida Board of Trustees, d/b/a UCF College of Medicine Graduate Medical Education Program and the UCF Ocala Family Medicine Residency Program. (Doc. 16). Upon preliminary review, the Court observes that the motion lacks the certification required by Local Rule 3.01(g) and it is therefore due to be denied, as motions to strike affirmative defenses are not among the motions excepted from the requirements of the rule. The purpose of Local Rule 3.01(g) “is to require the parties to communicate and resolve certain types of disputes without court intervention.” Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., 944 F.Supp. 876, 878 (M.D. Fla. 1996). Further, the term “communicate” has been defined as “to speak to each other in person or by telephone, in a good faith attempt to resolve disputed issues.” Davis v. Apfel, No. 6:98-CV-651-ORL-22A, 2000 WL 1658575 at n. 1(M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2000).
The parties should also carefully consider the legal standards applicable to motions to strike, and whether bringing forward such a motion is an appropriate exercise of the parties' (and the Court's) time and resources. Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the Court to strike any “insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Motions to strike, however, are generally disfavored and will usually be denied unless it is clear that the pleading (or portion thereof) that is sought to be stricken is legally insufficient. See Fabrica Italiana Lavorazione Materie Organiche S.A.S. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 684 F. 2d 776 (11th Cir. 1982); Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2002); In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. 1999). Indeed, a “court will not exercise its discretion under the rule to strike a pleading unless the matter sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party." Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216 F.R.D. 689, 691 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); Reyher v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 574 (M.D. Fla. 1995). And, “[t]o the extent defenses amount to denials, 'the proper remedy is not to strike the claim[s], but instead to treat [them] as . . specific denial[s]." Goodbys Creek, LLC, 2009 WL 1139572, at *3 (citing Bluewater Trading LLC v. Wilmar USA, Inc., 2008 WL 4179867, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 9, 2008)).
Accordingly, upon due consideration, Plaintiff's motion to strike (Doc. 16) is DENIED without prejudice. If any party wishes to refile this or a similar motion, they may do so only after fully satisfying both the letter and spirit of Local Rule 3.01(g), and specifically and meaningfully discussing, via a direct conversation between counsel, either in person or via telephone each and every issue that remains in dispute in an effort to reach a resolution. DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on December 10, 2025.
PHILIP R. LAMMENS
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shonte Page v. Univ. of Cent. Fla. Bd. of Trs. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…en defined as “to speak ---PAGE 2--- Case 5:25-cv-00742-JEP-PRL Document 22 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID 192 to each other in person or by telephone, in a good faith attempt to resolve disputed issues.” Davis v. Apfel, No. 6:98-CV-651-ORL-22A, 2000 WL 1658575 at n. 1(M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2000). The parties should also carefully consider the legal standards applicable to motions to strike, and whether bringing forward such a motion is an appropriate exercise of the parties' (and the Court's) time and resou…
-
Dolive v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…Tire Kingdom, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 876, 878 (M.D. Fla. 1996). The term “communicate” has been defined as “to speak to each other in person or by telephone, in a good faith attempt to resolve disputed issues.” Davis v. Apfel, No. 6:98- CV-651-ORL-22A, 2000 WL 1658575 at n. 1(M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2000). The Court expects counsel to comply with both the letter and spirt of Local Rule 3.01(g). Further, while conferring in good faith regarding the relief requested by Defendant, the parties should be mindful of all ap…
-
Rhoden v. Miller (M.D. Fla. 2025)…d-faith conference between counsel. In this district, the term “confer” has been construed to mean "speak[ing] to each other in person or by telephone, in a good faith attempt to resolve disputed issues.” See Davis v. Apfel, No. 6:98-cv-651-ORL-22A, 2000 WL 1658575, at *2 n.1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2000); Middle District Discovery (2021) at Section I.A.2 (defining "confer" in Local Rule 3.01(g) as a “substantive discussion,” in which "[m]any potential discovery disputes can be resolved []or the differences narrow…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2002)
- Reyher v. Tr. Annuity Plan for Pilots of Trans World Airlines, Inc., 796 F. Supp. 579 (M.D. Fla. 1995)
- Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 876 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
- In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. 1999)
- Fabrica Italiana Lavorazione Materie Organiche v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 684 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Allendorf v. Vensure Emp'r Servs., Inc., 2014 WL 12528362 (S.D. Fla. 2023)
- Shonte Page v. Univ. of Cent. Fla. Bd. of Trs. (M.D. Fla. 2025)