In Schmalfeldt’s incorrectly titled “PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MAKE MORE DEFINITE AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED” response, he makes the following argument:
II. There is No Compelling Reason to Strike Any Portion of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint Due to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Oh really? Continue reading →