Miller v. Apple, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOHN W. MILLER, 25-CV-1172 (JPC) (RFT) Plain�ff,

-against- ORDER APPLE INC., Defendant.

ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY, United States Magistrate Judge: Plain�ff John W. Miller has moved pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to strike Defendant Apple Inc.’s Mo�on to Dismiss the Complaint. (See ECF 40; ECF 41; ECF 50; ECF 51.) “[C]ourts in this district have held that Rule 12(f) does not authorize this court to strike documents other than pleadings.” Bazzelle v. NovoCure Ltd., No. 23-CV-5146 (GHW), 2025 WL 843668, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2025); see Honig v. Hansen, No. 20-CV-5872 (AKH), 2021 WL 4651475, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2021) (denying the plain�ffs’ Rule 12(f) mo�ons to strike material from defendants’ mo�ons to dismiss as “improper”). If Plain�ff wishes to oppose Defendant’s Mo�on to Dismiss, he may do so by April 8, 2025 and should include an explana�on of his basis for concluding that the Court should reject Defendant’s arguments. Plain�ff has also moved for a default judgment against Defendant. (See ECF 46; ECF 56; ECF 59.) Defendant �mely filed its Mo�on to Dismiss. (See ECF 49, Order.) Plain�ff has not demonstrated that Defendant’s counsel’s filing of its no�ce of appearance a day a�er filing the Mo�on to Dismiss is a basis for finding Defendant in default. Cf. Martinez v. Sulner, No. 04-CV-2728 (LTS) (DFE), 2006 WL 737137, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2006) (denying the plain�ff’s default judgment mo�on where the defendant filed its mo�on to dismiss one business day late, explaining that default judgment is a “drastic remedy” resorted to “only in extreme situations”). There is a strong preference for deciding cases on the merits rather than based on a procedural misstep. See Baxter v. Bradley, No. 21-1787-pr (L), 2022 WL 1315629, at *1 (2d Cir. May 3, 2022) (reaffirming “our Circuit's ‘strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits’”). Moreover, Plaintiff’s default judgment application does not comply with the individual practices of Judge John P. Cronan or the Local Rules of this Court. Finally, Plaintiff has moved to disqualify Defendant’s counsel. (See ECF 62.) Defendant may file a letter opposing the motion to disqualify by April 4, 2025.

DATED: March 21, 2025 SO ORDERED. New York, NY ( J my 4 mM ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY United States Magistrate Judge