Knowles v. Inzi Controls Alabama, Inc.

M.D. Alabama

Knowles v. Inzi Controls Alabama, Inc.

DecidedAugust 16, 2019

Docket1:17-cv-00839

StatusUnknown

This text of Knowles v. Inzi Controls Alabama, Inc. (Knowles v. Inzi Controls Alabama, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Knowles v. Inzi Controls Alabama, Inc., (M.D. Ala. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDWIN I. KNOWLES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:17-cv-839-ALB ) INZI CONTROLS ALABAMA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Edwin I. Knowles’s Objections to Portions of Defendant’s Evidentiary Submissions and Motion to Strike. (Doc. 33). Upon consideration, the motion is DENIED. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that motions to strike are proper only to attack a pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see also 2 Moore’s Federal Practice – Civil § 12.37 (2019) (“Only material included in a “pleading” may be the subject of a motion to strike, and courts have been unwilling to construe the term broadly …. Motions, briefs or memoranda, objections, or affidavits may not be attacked by the motion to strike.”). Accordingly, the court will treat motions purporting to strike evidence as notices of objection. Reeves-Howard v. S. Union State Cmty. Coll., Civil Action No. 3:07cv967-MHT, 2009 WL 1442059, *1 (M.D. Ala. 2009). The Court will address Knowles’s objections as part of its order on summary judgment and will consider “[o]nly evidence that is admissible on its face or that can

be reduced to admissible form and that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) ….” See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986); see also Macuba v. DeBoer, 193 F.3d 1316, 1322–24 (11th Cir. 1999). “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.” Luster v. Ledbetter, Civil Action No. 2:08cv551-MHT, 2009 WL 2448498, at *1 (M.D. Ala. 2009).

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of August 2019.

/s/ Andrew L. Brasher ANDREW L. BRASHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDWIN I. KNOWLES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:17-cv-839-ALB ) INZI CONTROLS ALABAMA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Edwin I. Knowles’s Objections to Portions of Defendant’s Evidentiary Submissions and Motion to Strike. (Doc. 33). Upon consideration, the motion is DENIED. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that motions to strike are proper only to attack a pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see also 2 Moore’s Federal Practice – Civil § 12.37 (2019) (“Only material included in a “pleading” may be the subject of a motion to strike, and courts have been unwilling to construe the term broadly …. Motions, briefs or memoranda, objections, or affidavits may not be attacked by the motion to strike.”). Accordingly, the court will treat motions purporting to strike evidence as notices of objection. Reeves-Howard v. S. Union State Cmty. Coll., Civil Action No. 3:07cv967-MHT, 2009 WL 1442059, *1 (M.D. Ala. 2009). The Court will address Knowles’s objections as part of its order on summary judgment and will consider “[o]nly evidence that is admissible on its face or that can

be reduced to admissible form and that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) ….” See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986); see also Macuba v. DeBoer, 193 F.3d 1316, 1322–24 (11th Cir. 1999). “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.” Luster v. Ledbetter, Civil Action No. 2:08cv551-MHT, 2009 WL 2448498, at *1 (M.D. Ala. 2009).

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of August 2019.

/s/ Andrew L. Brasher ANDREW L. BRASHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Knowles v. Inzi Controls Alabama, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knowles-v-inzi-controls-alabama-inc-almd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack