Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

Background

The order addresses a motion to strike Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.’s answer. Pentagon had filed its answer six days after the deadline. The order also discusses allegations that Pentagon’s denials were evasive, including statements that it lacked knowledge about whether Velasco enrolled in Pentagon’s health insurance.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the filing delay did not justify striking the answer. Although Pentagon should not have missed the deadline, the court found it unlikely that the six-day delay caused Velasco meaningful prejudice. The court also reasoned that entering a default judgment and preventing Pentagon from defending the case on the merits would cause Pentagon greater prejudice.

The court rejected the arguments concerning allegedly evasive denials. It stated that district courts cannot review statements in an answer and decide, based on their own intuition, that the statements are implausible. The court also stated that Pentagon’s statements were not “insufficient defenses” under Rule 12(f) because they were not defenses. Although the court considered it somewhat unlikely that Pentagon did not know whether Velasco enrolled in its health insurance, the record did not show that Pentagon’s lack-of-knowledge assertions were made in bad faith.

Ruling

Judge Vince Chhabria denied the motion to strike. The court did not draw conclusions about either party’s conduct but advised both parties to litigate in good faith and consistently with their ethical obligations. It told Pentagon to work toward resolving the case efficiently without taking advantage of Velasco’s self-represented status. It also advised Velasco to verify that the cases he cites exist and referred him to the Federal Pro Bono Project for possible assistance.