The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL BROWN, JR., Case No. 24-13393
Plaintiff,
v. F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
NICOLE MOORE,
Defendant. Curtis Ivy, Jr.
____________________________/ United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CONSOLIDATED MOTION
(ECF No. 30)
Plaintiff moved to strike Defendant’s affirmative defenses, for leave to
amend his complaint, and for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c). (ECF No. 30). This motion is DENIED for the following
reasons.
A. Striking Affirmative Defenses
Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant’s affirmative defenses arguing that the
defenses are boilerplate and, essentially, that neither defense has merit. (ECF No.
30, PageID.93).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes district courts to “strike
from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). But “[m]otions to strike are viewed
with disfavor and are not frequently granted.” Operating Eng’rs Loc. 324 Health
Care Plan v. G & W Constr. Co., 783 F.3d 1045, 1050 (6th Cir. 2015). A Rule
12(f) “motion to strike will not be granted if the insufficiency of the defense is not
clearly apparent, or if it raises factual issues that should be determined on a hearing
on the merits.” United States v. Petty Prods., Inc., 780 F. Supp. 1488, 1498 (S.D.
Ohio 1991) (citation omitted). “The motion to strike should be granted only when
the affirmative defense is not relevant to the dispute and has no possible relation to
the controversy.” Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. v. Deutsche Solar GmbH, 116 F.
Supp. 3d 818, 823 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s challenge to the merits of the affirmative defenses does not
establish that the affirmative defenses are irrelevant and have no possible relation
to the controversy. Rather, his challenges raise factual issues, such as asserting
that Defendant should have known the falsity of her report, that are best
determined on the merits through litigation. And the Court rejects Plaintiff’s
assertion that the affirmative defenses are improperly boilerplate. “An affirmative
defense may be pleaded in general terms and will be held to be sufficient . . . as
long as it gives plaintiff fair notice of the nature of the defense.” Pough v.
DeWine, 2023 WL 1812641, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 8, 2023) (quoting Lawrence v.
Chabot, 182 F. App’x 442, 456 (6th Cir. 2006)). Plaintiff has fair notice of the
nature of defenses as evidenced by his motion addressing the merits of the
defenses. For these reasons, the Court will not strike the affirmative defenses.
B. Amending the Complaint
Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add evidence and claims under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. This request is denied because Plaintiff did not attach a
complete proposed amended complaint with his motion. The Court’s Local Rule
15.1 requires a motion to amend to attach the proposed amended complaint to the
motion. A proposed amended complaint is required so the Court can assess
whether leave to file the amended pleading should be granted.
During the scheduling conference held September 15, 2025, Plaintiff
indicated that he would file a motion to amend soon. That motion should be filed
by October 15, 2025, as stated in the Case Management Order.
C. Judgment on the Pleadings
Plaintiff asserts that the pleadings and other documents establish that he is
entitled to judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 30, PageID.93). This motion is
denied for two reasons. First, it is procedurally improper considering that Plaintiff
intends to amend his complaint. Rule 12(c) allows a party to move for judgment
on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed. Pleadings are closed when the
defendants have filed an answer. The pleadings are not closed until the issue of
Plaintiff’s amendment is resolved and Defendant has answered the operative
complaint. Second, Plaintiff needs to do more than simply assert that the pleadings
and evidence entitle him to judgment. He will need to show why that is so with
argument and citation to places in the pleadings and documents in the record that
support his entitled to judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are
required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as
error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which
the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to
a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in
effect unless it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich.
Local Rule 72.2.
Date: September 15, 2025 s/Curtis Ivy, Jr.
Curtis Ivy, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of
record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System or by First Class
U.S. mail on September 15, 2025.
s/Sara Krause
Case Manager
(810) 341-7850