The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JOSHUA CROCKETT,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1234-AGM-LHP
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Verified Motion to Strike Defendant’s Untimely
Affirmative Defenses and for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), 12(g)(2),
and Local Rule 3.01(g). Doc. No. 99. Defendant has filed a response in
opposition. Doc. No. 109. Upon review the motion is due to be denied.
While Plaintiff discusses “affirmative defenses,” what Plaintiff is really
seeking is to strike portions of Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss (Doc. No.
96). See Doc. No. 99, at 4. To the extent Plaintiff’s motion is premised on a failure
to confer under Local Rule 3.01(g), the motion is unpersuasive, as the record clearly
shows that Defendant complied with the conferral requirements of Local Rule
3.01(g), as well as the supplementation requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g)(3). See
Doc. No. 96, at 24; Doc. No. 101. In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)
only authorizes a Court to strike matters from a pleading, not from a motion. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); Silva v. Swift, 333 F.R.D. 245, 248 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (“Plaintiff's
motion to strike asks this court to strike two motions, not pleadings. Rule 12(f)
does not authorize such relief.”); Marfut v. Gardens of Gulf Cove POA, Inc., No. 2:17-
cv-595-FtM-38CM, 2018 WL 746866, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2018) (“Rule 12(f)
motions are limited to striking pleadings, which include complaints, answers, and
a reply to an answer. So these type of motions cannot be used to strike other
motions.” (citations omitted)).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 99) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 18, 2026.
LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties