KNIGHT
v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC

M.D. Fla. | 2025-05-29
333 F.R.D. 245 2025 FFL 13811 District Court, M.D. Florida (2025) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

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.

Synopsis

A pro se plaintiff moved to strike the defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The court denied the motion, holding that Rule 12(f) does not authorize striking motions themselves and that the motion to dismiss contained no basis for striking under the rule.

Holding

Rule 12(f) does not authorize courts to strike motions, affidavits, or memoranda in support of motions because these filings are not pleadings for purposes of the rule. Additionally, even if Rule 12(f) permitted such striking, the motion to dismiss contained no basis for striking it under the rule.

Headnotes

[1] Motions, affidavits, and memoranda in support of motions are not pleadings subject to striking under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

[2] Courts generally view motions to strike with disfavor.

Previewing 2 of 3 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
Key Quotes

“the rule 'does not authorize courts to strike motions, affidavits, or memoranda in support of motions' in the same way because these filings are not pleadings for purposes of the rule”

Establishes that Rule 12(f) cannot be used to strike motions themselves, only pleadings

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Knight, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to strike Defendants' motion to dismiss in a case involving Equifax Information Services, LLC, Tra…

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.

Topics
Pro Se Litigant Liberal Construction Liberal Construction Pro Se Litigant

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Litigant Liberal Construction cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, moves to strike Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (Dkt. 18.) Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion. (Dkt. 28.) Courts "give liberal construction” to documents filed by pro se plaintiffs. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F. 3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, courts "generally view motions to strike with disfavor.” Gill-Samuel v. Nova Biomedical Corp., 298 F.R.D. 693, 699 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (quotation omitted). Further, although Rule 12(f) permits courts to strike "insufficient defense[s]" and "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, [and] scandalous matter" from pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), the rule “does not authorize courts to strike motions, affidavits, or memoranda in support of motions" in the same way because these filings are not pleadings for purposes of the rule, Silva v. Swift, 333 F.R.D. 245, 248 (N.D. Fla. 2019). Even if Rule 12(f) allowed the court to strike Defendants' motion to dismiss, the court has reviewed

the motion and discerns no basis for striking it under the rule. (See Dkt. 9.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to strike (Dkt. 18) is DENIED.

ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on May 29, 2025.

JULIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties Counsel of Record

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Knight v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 333 F.R.D. 245 (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …s matter” from pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), the rule “does not authorize courts to strike motions, affidavits, or memoranda in support of motions” in the same way because these filings are not pleadings for purposes of the rule, Silva v. Swift, 333 F.R.D. 245, 248 (N.D. Fla. 2019). Even if Rule 12(f) allowed the court to strike Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court has reviewed the motion and discerns no basis for striking it under the rule. (See Dkt. 9.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion…
    1 / 2
  • Naples Screen Repair, LLC v. Arrow Handyman "LLC", 165 F. Supp. 3d 1357 (M.D. Fla. 2021)
    …o. 8:19-cv-448-T-33CPT, 2019 WL 3323477, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2019). NSR moves to strike Affirmative Defense 9 (innocent infringement). This is not an affirmative defense to infringement. Pk Studios, Inc. v. R.L.R. 3 See also Silva v. Swift, 333 F.R.D. 245, 247 (N.D. Fla. 2019); Bush v. Barnett Bank of Pinellas Cnty., 916 F. Supp. 1244, 1249 (M.D. Fla. 1996); Sai Hosp. Mgmt. Co. v. Rockhill Ins., No. 2:20-cv-00280-JLB-MRM, 2021 WL 463812, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2021); O’Reilly v. Home Servs. by McCu…
  • Gibson v. Idleberg (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …-PAGE 4--- Case 6:24-cv-00683-JSS-NWH Document 41 Filed 09/18/25 Page 4 of 26 PageID 281 1980) (reviewing a Rule 12(f) decision for abuse of discretion). Courts "generally view motions to strike with disfavor.” Gill-Samuel v. Nova Biomedical Corp., 298 F.R.D. 693, 699 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (quotation omitted). However, “striking an improper amended pleading filed without leave of court is appropriate and necessary to enforce Rule 15(a)(2)." Rogers v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. CIV.A. 12-0019-WS-B, 201…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw