Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_06-cv-00163/USCOURTS-ared-3_06-cv-00163-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

2

Mo-Kan Iron Workers Welfare Fund v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. 06-4095, 2006 WL

2311833 (W.D. Mo. 2006) (citing Stanbury Law Firm v. I.R.S., 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000)

(reversing the district court’s striking of irrelevant pleadings)).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

ERNEST SEXTON and JO ANN SEXTON PLAINTIFFS

v. 3:06CV00163-WRW

SHERIFF WAYMOND HUTTON,

individually and in his official capacity, and

DEPUTY DELBERT ROBBINS, individually

and in his official capacity DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Doc. No. 10). Defendants have

responded (Doc. No. 12). 

Plaintiffs ask that Defendants affirmative defenses be stricken because they are factually

unsupported. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) governs striking pleadings and it states:

[T]he court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.1

 

“Striking a party’s pleadings is an extreme measure” and “motions to strike under [Rule 12(f) ] are

viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.”2

In response, Defendants correctly note that there is no requirement in the federal rules that

affirmative defenses raised in an Answer be factually supported. This case began on September 7,

2006, and discovery has only recently begun. For this reason, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of January, 2007.

 /s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00163-BSM Document 14 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 1