Kapoor v. Blinken

Background

Shreya Kapoor, Yash Pal Garg, and Reva Garg sued Antony Blinken to compel him to adjudicate Yash and Reva Garg’s immigrant visa applications. Blinken filed an answer to the petition.

Motion

The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike Blinken’s entire answer. Rule 12(f) permits a court to strike an insufficient defense or matter that is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The answer was 20 pages long, responded to the allegations in the petition, and asserted defenses based on failure to state a claim and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs did not argue that those defenses were insufficient or identify material in the answer that was redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. Instead, they challenged the truthfulness of Blinken’s denials and argued that some allegations should be treated as admitted because they could have been easily confirmed or were supposedly in his possession.

Ruling

The court held that Rule 12(f) does not authorize it to resolve factual challenges to allegations in an answer or deem particular facts admitted. The plaintiffs also did not identify material in the answer that was extraneous to the litigation. The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answer.