The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles P. Kocoras, Chief District Judge
This matter comes before the court on Defendant's, Peter Lagios ("Lagios"), Petition to Strike and Dismiss Lagios as a Party Defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is denied.
Lagios fails to supply the applicable procedural rule under which he brings the instant petition; however, motions to strike are provided for pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(f). Rule 12(f) allows us on our "own initiative, at any time, to order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Generally, Rule 12(f) motions are brought to attack the pleadings and are disfavored because of their tendency to delay the proceedings. Heller Financial v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989).
After reviewing Lagios' Petition, it is evident that he is disputing the propriety of his involvement in the dispute and not the redundant, impertinent, or scandalous nature of the pleadings as they relate to him. He attaches a number of exhibits, outside the pleadings, to the instant petition to support his arguments. A factual inquiry, such as the one requested, would require us to make improper determinations under the present Petition. Such an inquiry would be proper if made pursuant to a motion for summary judgment.
Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, a party moving for summary judgment is required to file "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law." Lagios has yet to submit such a statement, and it is premature to do so. Therefore, despite his request for summary judgment, we are unwilling to address the Petition as such without the required 56.1 statement. Consequently, Lagios' Petition is denied without prejudice.
Charles P. Kocoras Chief Judge United States District Court
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...