SEBASTIAN
v.
TEMIZ
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.
A federal trial court denied plaintiff's motion to strike a defendant's Rule 11 sanctions motion, finding the motion to strike procedurally improper because motions are not pleadings subject to Rule 12(f). The court also noted plaintiff's motion violated local rules by failing to comply with required procedures and failing to cite legal authority.
The motion to strike is procedurally improper because motions are not pleadings and therefore cannot be stricken under Rule 12(f). Additionally, the motion fails to comply with Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g) and lacks citation to legal authority. The court denied the motion but allowed plaintiff an opportunity to file a response to the underlying sanctions motion by June 13, 2025.
[1] A motion to strike is procedurally improper when directed at a motion for sanctions, as motions are not pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
[2] A party seeking to strike a motion must cite legal authority in support of the requested relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A motion is not a pleading, and thus a motion to strike a motion is not proper under 12(f).”
Establishes the core holding that Rule 12(f) motions to strike apply only to pleadings, not to motions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Sebastian filed a motion to strike Defendant Temiz's Rule 11 motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Defendant Temiz responded…
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 Local Rules Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
responds in opposition. Doc. No. 14. On review, the motion is due to be denied.
First, the motion fails to comply with the Local Rules, including Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g), and Plaintiff fails to cite any legal authority in support of the requested relief. See also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (pro se litigants are "subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"). Second, assuming Plaintiff proceeds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the motion is procedurally improper, as a motion to strike is only properly directed to pleadings, which the motion for sanctions is not.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see also Weiss v. PPG Indus., 148 F.R.D. 289, 292 (M.D. Fla. 1993) ("A motion is not a pleading, and thus a motion to strike a motion is not proper under 12(f).").
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED. However, given that Plaintiff did not otherwise file a response to Defendant's motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 10), the Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to do so. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant's motion (Doc. No. 10) on or before June 13, 2025. Failure to timely respond will result in the Court treating the motion as unopposed. Local Rule 3.01(c).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 29, 2025.
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahon v. City of Largo, 829 F. Supp. 377 (M.D. Fla. 1993)…eading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” A response to a motion is not a pleading, and thus a motion to strike a motion is not proper under 12(f). See also Weiss v. PPG Industries, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 289 (M.D.Fla.1993). Therefore the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to strike. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES The court’s authority to permit amendment to a complaint is found in Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(a). The r…
-
Sebastian v. Temiz, 148 F.R.D. 289 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…tiff proceeds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the motion is procedurally improper, as a motion to strike is only properly directed to pleadings, which the motion for sanctions is not. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see also Weiss v. PPG Indus., 148 F.R.D. 289, 292 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (“A motion is not a pleading, and thus a motion to strike a motion is not proper under 12(f).”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED. However, given that Plaintiff did not otherwise file a response to Defen…
-
Sabanski v. Ulta Salon (M.D. Fla. 2025)…Mar. 10, 2022) (denying a motion to strike under Rule 12(f) because "any such request is improper because Rule 12(f) applies to pleadings alone") (citing Holyoak v. United States, 2009 WL 1456742, at* 1 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2009); Weiss v. PPG Indus., 148 F.R.D. 289, 292 (M.D. Fla. 1993)). 1 Indeed, after filing the instant motion, Ulta filed a motion in limine seeking essentially the same relief: to exclude or limit the testimony of Drs. Schoedler, Roca, and Patel. (Doc. 53). Nothing in this Order shall be…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Sebastian v. Temiz, 148 F.R.D. 289 (M.D. Fla. 2025)