MORENO

v.

MOORE

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the plaintiff moves the Court to strike all thirteen of the defendants’ “affirmative defenses”¹ on the ground that they do not comply with federal pleading standards but rather amount to “shotgun” allegations (Doc. 65). The defendants withdraw their defense that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to the claims directed to them but otherwise oppose the motion (Doc. 75; Resp.). The defendants assert the plaintiff did not first confer with counsel under Local Rule 3.01(g),² and the defenses

et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382 (3d ed.). Generally, courts view such motions with disfavor and infrequently grant them. Operating Eng’rs Local 324 Health Care Plan v. G & W Constr. Co., 783 F. 3d 1045, 1050 (6th Cir. 2015). Indeed, some judges call motions to strike “time wasters.” See, e.g., Gibson v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 6:18-cv-1742-Orl-40TBS, 2019 WL 3206925, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 16, 2019) (citing cases); Ability Hous. of Ne. Fla., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, No. 3:15-CV-1380-J-32PDB, 2016 WL 816586, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar.², 2016). Thus, a motion to strike generally will be denied “unless the challenged allegations have no possible relation or logical connection to the subject matter

of the controversy and may cause some form of significant prejudice to one or more of the parties to the action.” Miller, supra, § 1382. See also Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cty., Fla., 306 F. 2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962) (“[A] motion to strike should be granted only when the pleading to be stricken has no possible relation to the controversy.”). A court should resolve any doubts as to whether material should be stricken under Rule 12(f) in favor of the non-moving party. Miller, supra, § 1382. Upon review of the amended complaint (Doc. 52; Am. Compl.) and the defendants’ answer (Doc. 58; Answer), the defendants have complied with Rule 8, which provides a party responding to a pleading must “state in short and plain terms its defenses to each

claim asserted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A). See also Ability Hous., 2016 WL 816586, at *2 (reasoning that the use of the term “state” in Rule 8 supports the interpretation that the Iqbal- Twombly³ standard, which demands a party “show” he is entitled to the relief he seeks, does not extend to asserting general or affirmative defenses). In his amended complaint, the plaintiff raises constitutional claims (excessive force and failure to intervene) and state claims (common law battery and failure to intervene). See Am. Compl. at 4-6. In their answer, the defendants use language indicating which defense is directed to which claim. See Answer at 3-4 (using

phrases such as “constitutional rights”; “statutory or constitutional right”; “state tort claims”; “constitutionally cognizant injury,” or explicitly referencing a state or federal constitutional provision or precedent). Additionally, the plaintiff does not assert or demonstrate the defenses have “no

Ton B. TOOMEY United States Magistrate Judge

Jax-6 Cc: Brian Paul Moreno Counsel of Record