United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
F. BECKERMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sage Redwind (“Redwind”), appearing as a
self-represented litigant, filed this action against her
former employer, Western Union, LLC (“Western
Union”), alleging claims for discrimination and
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. Redwind filed an amended complaint on July 23, 2019,
and Western Union filed its answer on August 5, 2019. Pending
before the Court are Redwind's Motion for Defendant to
Provide Definite Statements (ECF No. 66), and Motion to
Strike Part of Defendant's Answer in Paragraph 41 (ECF
Court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §
1331. Redwind's motions are not dispositive of any claim
or defense, and therefore a U.S. Magistrate Judge may resolve
the motions. See Reddy v. Morrissey, No.
3:18-cv-00938-YY, 2018 WL 4407248, at *1 n.1 (D. Or. Sept.
17, 2018) (“While a motion to dismiss is dispositive,
this motion to strike is not and therefore may be resolved
with an opinion and order by a magistrate judge.”);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (providing that U.S.
Magistrate Judges may issue orders “[w]hen a pretrial
matter is not dispositive of a party's claim or
defense”). For the following reasons, the Court
denies Redwind's motions.
MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Rule 12(e), a “party may move for a more definite
statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is
allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party
cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(e). Redwind moves for a more definite statement in
paragraph 43 of Western Union's answer, to which no
responsive pleading is allowed. Accordingly, Rule 12(e) does
not apply. In any event, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b) allows Western
Union to deny Redwind's allegations, and Western Union is
not required to explain or provide evidence in support of its
denial. Accordingly, the Court denies Redwind's motion
for a more definite statement.
MOTION TO STRIKE “AMONG OTHER THINGS” IN
Rule 12(f), the court may strike from a pleading any
“insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f).
“‘Immaterial' matter in a pleading is content
that has no essential or important relationship to the claim
for relief or the defenses being pleaded, ” while
“‘[i]mpertinent' matter is that which does
not pertain, and is not necessary, to the issues in
question.” Complete Distrib. Servs., Inc. v. All
States Transp., LLC, No. 3:13-cv-00800-SI, 2015 WL
1393281, at *2 (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2015) (citation, brackets,
and quotation marks omitted).
complaint, Redwind alleges in paragraph 41 that “[o]n
February 13, 2018, Western Union terminated Redwind's
employment alleging Redwind filed a ‘bad faith
complaint.'” (Am. Compl. ¶ 41.) In its answer,
Western Union “admits that it terminated
Plaintiff's employment on February 13, 2018 for, among
other things, making a complaint in bad faith.” (Answer
¶ 41.) Redwind moves to strike the phrase “among
other things, ” on the ground that Western Union
represented in its termination letter that
“‘[y]ou are being let go based on your dishonesty
in these acts, and for no other reason whatsoever'”
and therefore Western Union's answer is contrary to the
evidence. (Pl.'s Mot. at 3.) Western Union responds that
it identified several acts of dishonesty in its termination
letter, and therefore its statement that it terminated
Redwind's employment for, among other things, making a
complaint in bad faith, is accurate. (Def.'s Resp. at
Court need not resolve the parties' factual dispute at
this stage of the litigation. See Estate of
Osborne-Vincent v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., No.
3:16-cv-02305-YY, 2019 WL 764029, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 3, 2019)
(“[C]ourts may not resolve disputed and substantial
factual or legal issues in deciding a motion to
strike.”). There is nothing insufficient, redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous about Western
Union's use of the phrase “among other
things” in paragraph 41 of its answer, and therefore
the Court denies Redwind's motion to strike.
challenges Western Union's failure to serve her with a
paper copy of its answer, but the Court granted Redwind's
application for CM/ECF registration in January 2019, and
therefore Western Union's electronic filing of its answer
via CM/ECF was sufficient to serve Redwind. SeeLR
5(c)(1) (“[T]he receipt by the pro se party
[who is a registered user] of the Court's e-mail notices
of electronic filing will constitute service upon the pro
LOCAL RULE 7-1
Court reminds Redwind that she is required to make a good
faith effort to resolve disputes with Western Union's
counsel prior to filing a motion, and then certify in the
motion that she has conferred with Western Union.
See LR 7-1(a). The Court has authorized conferral
via email in this ...