Sweigert v. Goodman
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-08653
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sweigert v. Goodman, Magistrate Judge Aaron denied George Sweigert’s motions to strike Jason Goodman’s answer and file a reply.
George Sweigert and Jason Goodman. Sweigert’s motion to strike was denied, so Goodman’s answer was not stricken, and Sweigert’s request to file a reply was also denied.
What happened
In Sweigert v. Goodman, George Sweigert asked the court to strike Jason Goodman’s answer, arguing that it contained improper allegations and unnecessary information. Sweigert also asked for permission to file a reply to the answer.
The court explained that striking material from a pleading is generally disfavored and requires a strong reason. It found that Goodman’s allegations did not materially change the information already in the case. The court also found that a reply was unnecessary because Sweigert had already responded to some allegations and would have opportunities to respond later if the case continued.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied both motions. The answer remained in the case, and Sweigert was not granted permission to file a reply.
The detailed version
- Sweigert v. Goodman · No. 1:18-cv-08653
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 16, 2021
Background
George Sweigert moved to strike Jason Goodman’s answer to the supplemented second amended complaint. Sweigert argued, among other things, that the answer contained counterclaims, counter-allegations, and unnecessary information. Sweigert also asked for permission to file a reply to the answer, arguing that a reply was needed to address what he described as prejudicial and scandalous allegations.
The opinion states that the motions were unopposed, but explains that the court still had to evaluate whether they were legally sufficient.
Motion to Strike
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court to remove from a pleading an insufficient defense or matter that is redundant, immaterial, irrelevant, or scandalous. The opinion explains that motions to strike are generally disfavored and are granted only when there is a strong reason to do so.
The court found that Goodman’s allegations did not materially change the overall information already contained in the parties’ prior filings. It therefore concluded that there was not a strong reason to strike the answer and denied Sweigert’s motion to strike.
Motion for Permission to File a Reply
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)(7) permits a reply to an answer only when the court orders one. The court found that a reply was unnecessary because Sweigert had already responded to some of Goodman’s allegations in his two motions. The court also stated that, if the case proceeded, Sweigert would have adequate opportunities to answer the allegations during later proceedings or at trial.
The court denied Sweigert’s motion for permission to file a Rule 7(a)(7) reply.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied both of Sweigert’s motions: the motion to strike Goodman’s answer and the motion for permission to file a reply. The clerk was asked to mail a copy of the order to the pro se parties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.