Knight v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: May 29, 2025
• Docket: 6:25-cv-00691
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:25-cv-691-JSS-LHP

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, TRANSUNION, LLC, and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, moves to strike Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (Dkt. 18.) Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion. (Dkt. 28.) Courts “give liberal construction” to documents filed by pro se plaintiffs. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, courts “generally view motions to strike with disfavor.” Gill-Samuel v. Nova Biomedical Corp., 298 F.R.D. 693, 699 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (quotation omitted). Further, although Rule 12(f) permits courts to strike “insufficient defense[s]” and “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, [and] scandalous matter” from pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), the rule “does not authorize courts to strike motions, affidavits, or memoranda in support of motions” in the same way because these filings are not pleadings for purposes of the rule, Silva v. Swift, 333 F.R.D. 245, 248 (N.D. Fla. 2019). Even if Rule 12(f) allowed the court to strike Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court has reviewed the motion and discerns no basis for striking it under the rule. (See Dkt. 9.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to strike (Dkt. 18) is DENIED. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on May 29, 2025.

/ Mg JUFIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties Counsel of Record

_2-