IN	THE	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT

FOR	THE	SOUTHERN	DISTRICT	OF	ALABAMA

SOUTHERN	DIVISION

JERONE	YOUNG,	 )

)

Plaintiff,	 )

)

v.	 ) CIVIL	ACTION	NO.	13-0586-KD-B

)

CITY	OF	MOBILE,	et	al,	 )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

											This	action	is	before	the	Court	on	the	motion	to	strike	claim	for	punitive	damages	filed	

by	the	City	of	Mobile,	Alabama	(doc.	46)	and	the	motion	to	voluntarily	strike	punitive	

damages	filed	in	response	by	plaintiff	Jerone	Young	(doc.	61).	 Defendant	City	of	Mobile	

moves	to	strike	Young’s	punitive	damages	claims	against the	City.	 In	response,	Young	filed	a	

motion	to	voluntarily	strike	his	punitive	damages	claims	stating	that	he	had	considered	the	

City’s	position	and	found	it	well	taken.	

Rule	12(f)	of	the	Federal	Rules	of	Civil	Procedure	governs	motions	to	strike.		The	Rule	

provides	as	follows:	

(f)	Motion	to	Strike.	The	court	may	strike	from	a	pleading	an	insufficient	

defense	or	any	redundant,	immaterial,	impertinent,	or	scandalous	matter.	

The	court	may	act:	

(1)	on	its	own;	or

(2)	on	motion	made	by	a	party	either	before	responding	to	the	

pleading	or,	if	a	response	is	not	allowed,	within	21	days	after	

being	served	with	the	pleading.

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

The	City	has	filed	an	answer	to	the	complaint	(doc.	22).		Therefore,	Rule	12(f)(2)	does	

not apply	since	the	motion	to	strike	was	not	made	before	responding	to	the	complaint.			Rule	

12(f)(1) provides	that	the	Court	may	act	on	its	own	to	strike	“an	insufficient	defense	or	any,	

Case 1:13-cv-00586-KD-B Document 62 Filed 06/17/14 Page 1 of 3
2

redundant,	immaterial,	impertinent,	or	scandalous	matter.”	Id.			However,	Young’s	claim	for	

punitive	damages	is	not	“an	insufficient	defense”	nor	is	it	“redundant,	immaterial,	

impertinent	or	scandalous.”	Id. 		Had	the	City	not	filed	an	answer,	the	Court	could	construe	

the	motion	as	one	pursuant	to	Rule	12(b)(6)	for	failure	to	state	a	claim	upon	which	relief	can	

be	granted.		But	under	Rule	12(b)(6),	“[a]	motion	asserting”	this	defense	“must	be	made	

before	pleading	if	a	responsive	pleading	is	allowed.”	Fed.	R.	Civ.	P. 12(b)(6).			

The	Court	next	looks	to	Rule	12(c)	which	provides	that	“[a]fter	the	pleadings	are	

closed--but	early	enough	not	to	delay	trial--a	party	may	move	for	judgment	on	the	

pleadings.”	Fed.	R.	Civ.	p.	12(c).			The	Rule	16(b)	Scheduling	Order	set	April	11,	2014	as	the	

deadline	for	plaintiff	to	move	for	leave	to	amend	the	pleadings	and	April	25,	2014	as	the	

deadline	for	defendants	to	move	for	leave	to	amend	the	pleadings.		(Doc.	33)		These

deadlines	have now	passed.	Therefore,	the	Court	will	address	the motion	to	strike	as	a	

motion	for	judgment	on	the	pleadings	as	to	Young’s	claim	for	punitive	damages.	

In	that	regard,	“[j]udgment	on	the	pleadings	is	proper	when	no	issues	of	material	fact	

exist,	and	the	moving	party	is	entitled	to	judgment	as	a	matter	of	law	based	on	the	substance	

of	the	pleadings	and	any	judicially	noticed	facts.”	Interline	Brands,	Inc.	v.	Chartis	Specialty	Ins.	

Co., --- F.3d	----,	2014	WL	1424432,	*2	(11th	Cir.	April	15,	2014)	(citing	Cunningham	v.	Dist.	

Attorney's	Office	for	Escambia	Cnty., 592	F.3d	1237,	1255	(11th	Cir.2010) (internal	

quotations	marks	omitted).		Where	the	motion	is	based	on	allegations	of	failure	to	state	a	

claim	upon	which	relief	can	be	granted,	it	is	evaluated	the	same	as	a	Rule	12(b)(6)	motion	to	

dismiss.	See	Sampson	v.	Washington	Mut.	Bank, 453	F.	Appx.	863,	865	n.	2	(11th	Cir.2011);	

Strategic	Income	Fund,	L.L.C.	v.	Spear,	Leeds	&	Kellogg	Corp., 305	F.3d	1293,	1295	n.	8	(11th	

Cir.2002).		In	that	regard,	the	allegations	in	the	complaint	must	be	accepted	as	true	and	the	

facts	and	all	inferences	must	be	construed	in	the	light	most	favorable	to	the	nonmoving	

party.	See	Scottsdale	Ins.	Co.	v.	Pursley, 450	F.	Appx.	888,	890	(11th	Cir.	2012).		The	complaint	

must	contain	“enough	facts	to	state	a	claim	to	relief	that	is	plausible	on	its	face.”	Bell	Atl.	

Case 1:13-cv-00586-KD-B Document 62 Filed 06/17/14 Page 2 of 3
3

Corp.	v.	Twombly, 550	U.S.	544,	570,	127	S.Ct.	1955,	167	L.Ed.2d	929	(2007).	To	do	so,	the	

plaintiff	must	plead	sufficient	facts	that	“allow[]	the	court	to	draw	the	reasonable	inference	

that	the	defendant	is	liable	for	the	misconduct	alleged.”	Ashcroft	v.	Iqbal, 556	U.S.	662,	678,	

129	S.Ct.	1937,	173	L.Ed.2d	868	(2009).	“Plausibility”	in	this	context,	must	be	more	than	a	

“sheer possibility	that	a	defendant	has	acted	unlawfully,”	and	if	the	complaint	alleges	facts	

that	are	“merely	consistent	with”	liability,	then	the	pleading	“stops	short	of	the	line	between	

possibility	and	plausibility	of	‘entitlement	to	relief.’	”	Id. (citing	Twombly, 550	U.S.	at	557).		

Overall,	the	plaintiff	must	allege	more	than	“labels	and	conclusions”	or	a	“formulaic	

recitation	of	the	elements	of	[the]	cause	of	action”.		Twombly, 550	U.S.	at	555.

Defendants	argue	that	punitive	damages	cannot	be	awarded	against	a	municipality

under	42	U.S.C.	§	1983, 42	U.S.C. §	1981	or	Title	VII	of	the	Civil	Rights	Act of	1964,	as	

amended.			Young	concedes	that	the	causes	of	action	he	has	alleged	against	the	City	will	not	

support	a	claim	for	punitive	damages.		

Young	brings	his	claims	against	all	defendants	pursuant	to	Title	VII,	42	U.S.C.	§	1981	

and	42	U.S.C.	§	1983.		As	to	the	§	1983	claim,	the	Supreme	Court	has	held	that	punitive	

damages	are	not	available	against	municipalities.	Newport	v.	Fact	Concerts, 453	U.S.	247,	271,	

101	S.Ct.	2748,	69	L.Ed.2d	616	(1981) (“a	municipality is	immune	from	punitive damages

under	42	U.S.C.	§	1983”).			As	to	his	claim	pursuant	to	42	U.S.C.	§	1981	and	Title	VII,	42	U.S.C.	

§	1981a(b)(1)	precludes	an	award	of	punitive	damages	against	a	“government,	government	

agency	or	political	subdivision.”

Therefore,	Young has	failed	to	state	a	claim	for	relief	that	is	plausible	on	its	face.		

Accordingly,	the	City’s	motion	is	GRANTED	and	judgment	as	a	matter	of	law	is	entered	as	to	

Young’s	claims	for	punitive	damages	against	the	City	of	Mobile.		

DONE	and	ORDERED	this	17th	day	of	June 2014.	

s/	Kristi	K.	DuBose		

KRISTI	K.	DuBOSE

UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00586-KD-B Document 62 Filed 06/17/14 Page 3 of 3