Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02358/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02358-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7403 Suit to Enforce Federal Tax Lien

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Robert F. Smith, 

Defendant.

No. CV10-2358-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On August 17, 2011, pro se Defendant Robert F. Smith filed a motion to strike 

four certificates of tax assessments against him for the years 1999-2002 on the basis that 

they were not properly certified. Doc. 36. These certificates were submitted by Plaintiff 

as exhibits in its response to Mr. Smith’s February 16, 2011, motion to dismiss. See

Doc. 15, Exhibits B-E, Doc. 14. The motion has been fully briefed. Docs. 37, 38. For 

the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the motion as moot. 

 Motions to Strike under Rule 12(f) are to be filed “either before responding to the 

pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the 

pleading.” Fed. R. Ev. 12(f). Additionally, Local Rule 7.2(m) provides that “[a]n 

objection to the admission of evidence . . . must be presented in the objecting party's 

responsive or reply memorandum . . . and not in a separate motion to strike or other 

separate filing.” LRCiv 7.2(m)(2). Mr. Smith did not raise an objection to Plaintiff’s 

exhibits either in his reply or within 21 days of receiving Plaintiff’s response to his 

Case 2:10-cv-02358-DGC Document 48 Filed 11/03/11 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

motion to dismiss. See Doc. 18. Moreover, Mr. Smith’s motion is moot because he did 

not file it until nearly five months after the Court had already denied his motion to 

dismiss. See Doc. 19. The Court has no basis to strike the attachments from pleadings 

that it has already ruled upon. 

 To the extent that Mr. Smith suggests that his motion is really an “Objection to the 

Admission of Exhibits” (Doc. 38 at 6), the Court advises Mr. Smith that attachment of 

exhibits to the response says nothing about whether they later will be admissible on 

summary judgment or at trial. Mr. Smith will have an opportunity to object to the 

admissibility of the exhibits if they are used at that time. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. 36) is denied. 

 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-02358-DGC Document 48 Filed 11/03/11 Page 2 of 2