POURSOHI v. BLINKEN

Background

Seyed Amir Sina Mirmotalebi Poursohi and Fatemehsadat Mirmotalebi brought a petition asking the court to require Antony Blinken to adjudicate Mirmotalebi’s immigrant visa application. The plaintiffs then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike Blinken’s answer.

The parties’ arguments

The plaintiffs asked the court to strike the answer and treat as admitted factual allegations that Blinken denied or said he could not admit or deny. They argued that the facts had been revealed in documents produced before the litigation or could have been confirmed with minimal effort. They also described some of the denials as irresponsible, incorrect, and inexplicable.

Court’s analysis

Rule 12(f) permits a court to strike an insufficient defense or material that is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The court explained that motions to strike are generally disfavored and that the challenged material should be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not established any Rule 12(f) ground. They did not identify an affirmative defense to strike, and they did not explain how the answer’s responses were needlessly repetitive, unrelated or unnecessary to the claims, or derogatory. The court found that the responses addressed the plaintiffs’ allegations directly.

The court also held that an alleged failure to verify factual allegations and disagreement with the accuracy of denials are not listed grounds for striking a pleading. A motion to strike is not a mechanism for challenging the factual accuracy of a pleading.

Ruling

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike. It also vacated the scheduled hearing because the matter could be decided without oral argument. This order addressed the motion to strike and did not resolve the underlying petition seeking a decision on the immigrant visa application.