Winns v. Exela Enterprise Solutions Inc

Background

Plaintiff Harris Lee Winns, who was representing himself, filed two motions: a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike the affirmative defenses in defendant Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc.’s answer, and a motion under Rule 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings.

Motion to Strike

The court explained that motions to strike are generally disfavored, although Rule 12(f) permits a court to remove redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from a pleading. The court also recognized the additional challenges faced by people representing themselves in federal court.

The court applied the requirement that affirmative defenses contain enough factual support to make their legal basis plausible and to provide notice. It found that Winns had filed a comprehensive brief addressing the defenses, while Exela’s two-page opposition did not respond to Winns’s specific arguments or justify the defenses it had asserted.

The court therefore granted Winns’s motion to strike with leave to amend. Exela was ordered to file an amended answer within 30 days of the order, with more specific explanations of the bases for its defenses.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The court stated that a plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings when the defendant’s answer raises factual issues or affirmative defenses. The court found that Exela’s answer did so. It also noted that discovery remained open and that Exela was being allowed to amend its answer.

The court therefore denied Winns’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The order terminated Docket Numbers 58 and 60. It did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.