al

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, paragraphs 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, and 25 are stricken in their
entirety; and paragraphs 3, 11, 13, and 15 are stricken in pertinent part. Defendant, Sally Przybil,
is given leave to file an amended answer that fully complies with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure on or before December 16, 2002. A telephone status hearing is set for January 9, 2003

[

John W. Darrah, Judge
ited States District Court

at 10:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: C pueuhes 4, 200 2—

4



Paragraphs 1, 7, 8, 9, and 25 of the answer “dispute” the allegations of the corresponding
paragraphs of the complaint. These paragraphs of the answer do not admit, deny or state that Sally
lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. Thus,
paragraphs 1, 7, 8, 9, and 25 do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 8(b) and, therefore, are stricken.

Paragraphs 3 and 13 admit in part and “dispute” in part the allegations in the corresponding
paragraphs of the complaint. As set forth above, “disputing” the allegations in the complaint does
not comply with Rule 8(b). Therefore, the portions of paragraphs 3 and 13 that “dispute” the
allegations set forth in the corresponding paragraphs of the complaint are stricken.

Paragraph 10 of the answer does not admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 10 of the
complaint. Rather, paragraph 10 pleads additional facts that allegedly controvert the averments in
paragraph 10 of the complaint. Saily has not pled these facts in the proper manner. Thus, paragraph
10 of the answer does not comply with Rule 8(b) and, therefore, is stricken.

Paragraphs 11 and 15 of the answer also plead additional facts that allegedly controvert the
averments in those paragraphs of the complaint but also deny and admit the allegations, respectively.
Thus, paragraphs 11 and 15 do not comply with Rule 8(b) in part. Therefore, the additional facts
pled in paragraphs 11 and 15 are stricken.

Finally, paragraph 16 does not admit, deny or state that Sally lacks sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph 16 of the complaint.
Rather, it pleads additional facts that allegedly controvert the averments in paragraph 16 of the
complaint. Sally has not pled these facts in the proper manner. Thus, paragraph 16 of the answer

does not comply with Rule 8(b) and, therefore, is stricken.

3.



tate ors (0857)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Meroe Megha Judge John W. Darrah “than Ausgwed Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 1940 DATE 11/19/2002
CASE METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ROBERT J. PRZYBILL, et al
TITLE
{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Qa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) QO Brief in support of motion due___.
@G) © Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue__.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon__setfor____at
(5) Qa Status hearing[held/continued to) [set for/re-set for)on__setfor___at
(6) QO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for]on__setfor__——at__—
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) i] (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__ at
(9) a} This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) O Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

ao @ (Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Paragraphs 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, and
25 are stricken in their entirety; and paragraphs 3, 11, 13, and 15 are stricken in pertinent part. Defendant,
Sally Przybil, is given leave to file an amended answer that fully complies with Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on or before December 16, 2002, A telephone status hearing is set for January
9, 2003 at 10:30 a.m.

ql) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. stnotoes

OV 21 2002

Notices maited by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.

a | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. cas
Copy to judgo/magistrae judge. 44uno3 3 Wisi sf
courtroom 00 ZI Hd O2 ACN cf

ie deputy's

initials

Datetimblbeidada US 14

central Clerk's Office snailing deputy initials



/.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Case No. 02 C 1940 re)
Plaintiff, Up

Hon. John W. Darrah my)
May “HED

ROBERT J. PRZYBIL and ky
02

)
)
)
)
)
v. )
)
)
SALLY PRZYBIL, )
)

Defendants, )

(@) OPINIO. (0)

This matters comes before the Court on Plaintiff's, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s
(“MetLife”), motion to strike portions of Defendant’s, Sally Przybil’s, answer to MetLife’s
complaint. For the reasons that follow, MetLife’s Motion to Strike is granted.

BACKGROUND

James Przybil (“the Insured”) was the insured of a Federal Employer’s Group Life Insurance
Policy (“the FEGLI Policy”) pursuant to the Federal Employer’s Group Life Insurance Act, 5 U.S.C.
§§ 8701-8716 and 5 C.F.R. Part 870. In 1980, the Insured designated his brother, Robert Przybil
(“Robert”), as the beneficiary of the FEGLI Policy. On or about April 30, 1989, the Insured married
Sally Przybil (“Sally”). On April 29, 1993, the Insured completed a Life Insurance Election form
concerning his coverage under the FEGLI Policy, but he did not submit any beneficiary designation
form subsequent to the 1980 designation.

On June 10, 1998, the Insured died. Robert submitted a claim for the Insured’s FEGLI

proceeds by a letter dated June 29, 1998, pursuant to the 1980 beneficiary designation. In August

-l-

/>—



1998, Sally submitted a claim for the FEGLI proceeds pursuant to the 1993 Life Insurance Election
form. On March 15, 2002, MetLife filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment against Robert and
Sally, seeking a declaration that Robert is entitled to the FEGLI proceeds, that Sally has no right to
the FEGLI proceeds, and that it is required to pay the FEGLI proceeds to Robert as the designated
beneficiary.

Sally, who is pro se, filed an answer to Metlife’s complaint in which she admits, denies or
“disputes” certain allegations in the complaint. MetLife then filed a Motion to Strike the portions
of the answer that “dispute” the allegations in the complaint.

YSI

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “[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.” Generally, motions to strike are disfavored. Heller Fin., Inc. v.
Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989). However, such motions are not
disfavored where they remove “unnecessary clutter” from the litigation. Heller Fin., Inc., 883 F.2d
at 1294, The decision whether to strike material is within the discretion of the court. Talbot v.
Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 1992),

MetLife moves to strike paragraphs 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 25 as well as a portion of
paragraphs 3, 11, and 15 of Sally’s answer because they do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. Rule 8(b) provides, in pertinent part, that:

A party shall state in short and plain terms the party’s defenses to each claim asserted

and shall admit or deny the averments upon which the adverse party relies. If a party

is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an

averment, the party shall so state and this has the effect of a denial. Denials shall
fairly meet the substance of the averments denied.

-2-