IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DIVISION, DISTRICT OF UTAH
_____________________________________________________________________
SOPHIA STEWART,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL T. STOLLER, JONATHAN
LUBELL, DEAN WEBB, GARY BROWN
and JOHN DOES I through X,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 2:07-cv-00552
ORDER & RULING
JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROOKE C.
WELLS
_____________________________________________________________________
On July 2, 2009, Defendant Michael Stoller filed his Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s
Pleadings 1 In response, Plaintiff Sophia Stewart filed an objection and response to the
motion.2 Upon review of the pending motion, the Court now rules as stated herein and
denies defendant’s Motion To Strike.
1Initially, it appears that Mr. Stoller’s motion was actually filed as part of
defendant’s affidavit in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint. See,
Docket Number 74. However, at the request of the court clerk’s office, Mr. Stoller filed
his motion to strike separate from his affidavit. Docket Number 76.
2Docket Number 78 and 79. Pleading entitled “Objection And Response To
Jonathan Lubell, Gary Brown, Dean Webb, and Michael Stoller’s Objection To Motions
And Memorandums For Default Of Judgment And Motion To Strike.” See also, Docket
Number 82 pleading entitled “Objection To Defendant Michael T. Stoller’s Motion To
Strike Plaintiff’s Pleadings; Points And Authorities.”
In his pending motion, Mr. Stoller addresses plaintiff’s failure to follow rules and
procedures, ultimately requesting that this Court “strike the sham pleadings filed by the
Plaintiff.”3 Defendant’s motion, however, is unclear as to which of plaintiff’s pleadings
he seeks to strike. Specifically, the Court is uncertain whether Mr. Stoller’s motion
seeks to strike all of plaintiff’s pleadings, those pleading’s most recently filed, or is in
fact a motion to dismiss the entire action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
If Mr. Stoller’s motion is characterized as a motion to dismiss, on August 28,
2008, Judge Waddoups issued a Memorandum Decision and Order 4 denying Mr.
Stoller’s previously filed motion to dismiss.5 Moreover, if plaintiff’s motion is in
reference to plaintiff’s recently filed pleadings, on June 14, 2009, this Court entered an
Order denying plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice, motion for default judgment and
motion to amend.6 Absent additional information from defendant as to the substance of
his motion, the courts’ prior rulings appear to moot the pending matter.
Thus, given both the amorphous nature of the motion and the previous rulings
issued by both Judge Waddoups and this court, the court hereby denies defendant’s
motion to dismiss.
3Docket Number 76. Defendant Stoller’s Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s Pleadings;
Points And Authorities.
4Docket No. 35.
5Docket No. 20.
6Docket No. 75.
2
DATED this 11 day of August, 2009.
BY THE COURT:
______________________
Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge
3--
GUILT-LESS NESS, JOY YES-NESS, FREEDOM!!!!!!
