Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_12-cv-00293/USCOURTS-almd-3_12-cv-00293-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity - Real Property Foreclosure

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

EDGAR L. BURNS, JR., and )

MELANIE BURNS, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:12cv293-MHT

) (WO) 

U.S. BANK, N.A., and )

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ) 

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

It is ORDERED that defendants U.S. Bank, N.A. and

Bank of America, N.A.’s motion to strike evidence (Doc.

No. 21) is denied under the conditions set forth below.

***

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure delineate the

general use of a motion to strike: “The court may strike

from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(f) (emphasis added). The terms of the rule

Case 3:12-cv-00293-MHT-CSC Document 25 Filed 01/30/13 Page 1 of 3
2

make clear that “[o]nly material included in a ‘pleading’

may be subject of a motion to strike.... Motions, briefs

or memoranda, objections, or affidavits may not be

attacked by the motion to strike.” 2 James Wm. Moore, et

al., Moore's Federal Practice § 12.37[2] (3d ed. 1999).

Therefore, as an initial matter, the motion to strike

must be denied as to all non-pleadings, and, in this

case, that would be all documents at issue. See Lowery

v. Hoffman, 188 F.R.D. 651, 653 (M.D. Ala. 1999)

(Thompson, J.); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (a “pleading” is

“(1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an

answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim;

(4) an answer to a crossclaim; (5) a third-party

complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and

(7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.”). 

Nevertheless, in resolving the pending

summary-judgment motion, the court will implicitly

consider the motion to strike as, instead, a notice of

objections to the testimony described. Norman v.

Case 3:12-cv-00293-MHT-CSC Document 25 Filed 01/30/13 Page 2 of 3
Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1328 (M.D.

Ala. 2002) (Thompson, J.); Anderson v. Radisson Hotel

Corp., 834 F. Supp. 1364, 1368 n.1 (S.D. Ga. 1993)

(Bowen, J.).

The court is capable of sifting evidence, as required

by the summary-judgment standard, without resort to an

exclusionary process, and the court will not allow the

summary-judgment stage to degenerate into a battle of

motions to strike.

DONE, this the 30th day of January, 2013.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-00293-MHT-CSC Document 25 Filed 01/30/13 Page 3 of 3