Jamaal Russ v. Nike, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : JAMAAL RUSS, : : Plaintiff, : 25-CV-05447 (JAV) : -v- : MEMORANDUM : OPINION AND ORDER NIKE, INC., : : Defendant. : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, United States District Judge: Before the Court is a motion to strike and for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Jamaal Russ, proceeding pro se, against Defendant Nike, Inc. (“Nike”).1 ECF No. 16 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Plaintiff filed the instant motion one day after Defendant filed its Answer and before any discovery in this case had taken place. See ECF Nos. 1-16. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is DENIED. 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). Plaintiff’s motion seeks to strike defenses from an Answer that is no longer operative in this case. See ECF Nos. 14, 22, 39. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to

1 Plaintiff filed the Motion on the docket as a motion to dismiss Defendant’s affirmative defenses, but the motion’s substance lead the Court to construe the Motion as stated. See, e.g., Meadows v. United Servs., Inc., 963 F.3d 240, 243 (2d Cir. 2020) (“It is well established that the submissions of a pro se litigant must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” (citation omitted)). strike is moot and must be denied. B. Motion for Summary Judgment

A grant of summary judgment is proper when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 822 F.3d 620, 631 n.12 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of

materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations[,] admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Plaintiff’s motion does not meet this burden. Although Plaintiff references various exhibits, Plaintiff did not submit any evidence in support of his motion. “[W]here the movant fails to fulfill its initial burden of providing admissible evidence of the material facts entitling it to summary judgment, summary judgment

must be denied.” Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139, 140-41 (2d Cir. 2003) (cleaned up). CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 16. SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2026 i LA CHADD New York, New York JEANNETTE A. VABGAS United States District Judge