Couto v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Background

Yuri Couto, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the complaint on October 21, 2023. JPMorgan Chase & Co. filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). Couto then filed two motions: a motion to strike the defendant’s answer and seek judgment in his favor, and a motion to strike the defendant’s pleadings and challenge the authority of the alleged defense counsel.

Rulings on Couto’s Motions

The court denied both motions. It held that the motion to strike the answer had no basis because JPMorgan had not filed an answer. Instead, JPMorgan had filed a motion to dismiss, and under Rule 12(a)(4), its answer was not yet due. Because there was no answer, there was nothing to strike.

The court also denied the motion to strike the pleadings. It stated that there were no pleadings to strike and that, to the extent the motion sought the same relief as the earlier motion, it was procedurally improper. The court also rejected the challenge to defense counsel’s authority, noting that counsel had appeared by filing the motion to dismiss.

Response Deadline and Disposition

The court stated that it was unclear whether Couto intended his two motions to serve as responses to JPMorgan’s motion to dismiss. Although the response deadline had passed, the court granted Couto an additional 14 days, until February 8, 2024, to file a memorandum responding to the motion to dismiss. The memorandum was to include all of Couto’s arguments, including those in the two denied motions. JPMorgan was given seven days after Couto filed the memorandum to submit a reply. The clerk was directed to close the two motions at Dkt. Nos. 11 and 14. The opinion did not decide JPMorgan’s motion to dismiss. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order.