The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
Introduction and Background
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike Punitive Damages (Doc. 84) and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 85). Plaintiffs filed a Response opposing the Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. 89). The issues are fully briefed and oral argument is not required.
At this time, the following claims remain in the case:
Count I: Plaintiff Michael Steinway's § 1983 civil rights claim for use of excessive force against defendants Simmons and Able only;
Count II: Plaintiff Michael Steinway's Illinois law claim for assault and battery against all Defendants;
Count IV: Plaintiff Peggy Steinway's § 1983 civil rights claim for use of excessive force against Defendants Simmons and Able only;
Count V: Plaintiff Peggy Steinway's Illinois law claim for assault and battery against all Defendants;
Count VII: Plaintiff David Crowell's Illinois law claim for assault and battery against all Defendants;
Count VIII: Plaintiff David Crowell's Illinois law claim for unlawful restraint, false arrest and false imprisonment against all Defendants Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2), as amended (Doc. 80), contains a prayer for relief requesting punitive damages in each of those counts.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that "[t]he Court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The Court may act: (1) on its own; or (2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 20 days after being served with the pleading." FED.R.CIV.P.12(f). Local Rule 7.1(g) provides that for all motions other than motions to remand, to dismiss, judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment and all post trial motions "a party shall have ten (10) days after service of the motion to file a written response." S.D. ILL.R.7.1(g).
Defendants' Motion to Strike is grossly untimely, pursuant to both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and Local Rule 7.1(g). Plaintiffs moved to reinstate the punitive damages claims on March 18, 2009 (Doc. 80). After receiving no responsive pleading from the Defendants, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion on April 15, 2009. (Doc. 83). It was not until the instant Motion to Strike (Docs. 84-85) was filed on June 1, 2009 that Defendants gave any indication they had objections to Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate Punitive Damages.
Defendants' untimeliness is sufficient reason to deny the Motion to Strike and hold the issues raised therein as waived. That said, the Court may consider the issue of its own accord. Williams v. Jader Fuel Co., Inc., 944 F.2d 1388, 1399-1400 (7th Cir. 1991). In this instance the Court will exercise its discretion and consider the merits of Defendants' Motion to Strike, but reminds the parties that the Local Rules and the ...