Pitz v. Gonzalez

Background

Petitioner Christopher Pitz sought permission to file a reply to Respondent Inessa Gonzalez’s amended answer. Pitz wanted to rebut factual statements that he contended should not have been included in the answer. Gonzalez opposed the request and moved to strike Pitz’s motion and the attached proposed reply.

Legal standard and analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)(7) allows a reply to an answer only if the court orders one. The court explained that such requests require a clear and convincing factual showing of necessity or other extraordinary circumstances of a compelling nature.

The court rejected Pitz’s argument that a reply was necessary to keep Gonzalez’s allegations of abuse and other misconduct from standing unrebutted. Gonzalez had not filed a counterclaim, so no response to a counterclaim was required. The court also explained that allegations in a pleading are only allegations and have no evidentiary value by themselves. Because the allegations would be treated as denied or avoided when no responsive pleading was required, a reply would have no substantive effect on the litigation.

The court noted that Pitz might instead have sought to remove unnecessary material through a motion to strike under Rule 12(f), which addresses redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material. But it concluded that adding another pleading would not serve a practical purpose, particularly because the proposed reply introduced additional allegations and accusations. The parties could present any disputed issues through testimony and evidence at trial.

Ruling

The court denied Pitz’s motion for leave to file a reply and denied Gonzalez’s motion to strike Pitz’s motion and proposed reply. It stated that no further briefing on this issue was necessary or would be considered. The court did not decide whether either party’s factual allegations were accurate.