IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 28, 2012
RUTH NORAEEN ANDREWS, PLAINTIFF,
CBOCS WEST, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion (Doc. 11) to strike defendant's affirmative defenses found in defendant's answer to plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 9). The defendant has filed a response to the plaintiff's motion (Doc. 12).
This cause of action is actually plaintiff's second bite at the employment discrimination apple with respect to her employment at Cracker Barrel. The Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant as to her employment at the Caseyville, Illinois, Cracker Barrel. See, Andrews v. CBOC's West, Inc. , 09-CV-1025-WDS, Order at Doc. 74. As part of that decision, the Court noted that the defendant had identified plaintiff as eligible for rehire. *fn1
In this 2012 action, plaintiff asserts that in 2010 she applied for a position of rehire with the defendant but has not been offered a position, in violation of her rights under Title VII. She asserts that she filed a complaint with the EEOC and has received a right to sue letter. She seeks to strike six of defendant's affirmative defenses, claiming that they are insufficient. *fn2
Rule 12(f) provides that a district court "may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). The court may either strike on its own or on a motion by a party and has considerable discretion in striking any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter. Id .; Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co. , 961 F.2d 654, 665 (7th Cir.1992).
In this case, the Court FINDS that none of the affirmative defenses asserted here are subject to being stricken under Rule 12(f). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to strike is DENIED on all grounds raised.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WILLIAM D. STIEHL