Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00447/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00447-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

Martin W. Winn, on behalf of himself and

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Unifund CCR Partners, an Ohio

partnership; the Hameroff Law Firm, P.C.,

an Arizona professional corporation;

David E. Hameroff, an individual; the

marital community of David E. Hameroff

and Jane Doe Hameroff; David W.

Lippman, an individual; the marital

community of David W. Lippman and

Jane Doe Lippman, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-447 TUC FRZ (GEE)

ORDER

Pending before the court is a motion to strike scandalous and immaterial pleadings

filed on December 8, 2006, by the plaintiff, Martin Winn. [doc. #24] The defendants,

Hameroff/Lavinsky Law Firm, P.C., David Hameroff, and David Lippman (collectively,

Hameroff) filed a response. 

Previously, Hameroff filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court on behalf

of his client, Unifund CCR Partners, claiming Martin Winn owed his client a debt. In the

instant action, Winn claims the state court complaint violates the Fair Debt Collection

Case 4:06-cv-00447-FRZ-GEE Document 32 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., which prohibits debt collectors from

engaging in deceptive, abusive and unfair practices. 

On November 14, 2006, Hameroff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Winn filed a response and Hameroff filed a reply. In the instant motion, Winn moves that

the court strike parts of Hameroff’s reply brief supporting his motion for judgment on the

pleadings because they are scandalous and immaterial pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(f).

The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Edmonds for all pretrial matters

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.2. Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Arizona. 

Discussion

Pursuant to Rule 12(f), “[u]pon motion made by a party . . . the court may order

stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” FED.R.CIV.P.

Winn moves pursuant to Rule 12(f) that this court strike parts of Hameroff’s reply

brief because they are scandalous and immaterial. This Rule, however, pertains only to

pleadings. FED.R.CIV.P. 12(f). The term “pleading” refers to a complaint, answer, reply to

a counterclaim, answer to a cross claim, a third-party complaint, or a third-party answer.

FED.R.CIV.P. 7(a). A reply brief is not a pleading. Rule 12(f) does not apply. SidneyVinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to strike scandalous and immaterial pleadings filed

on December 8, 2006, by the plaintiff, Martin Winn, is DENIED. [doc. #24] 

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2007.

Case 4:06-cv-00447-FRZ-GEE Document 32 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 2