Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendant, which led to the Plaintiff filing two emergency motions to strike parts of the Defendant's motion and supporting documents. The court treated the first motion as a motion to seal and evaluated the second alongside the summary judgment motion. The Plaintiff argued that certain references by the Defendant exceeded the pleadings as they were not raised as affirmative defenses. However, the court found these arguments misplaced, clarifying that the burden of proving damages in a conversion claim rests with the Plaintiff. The Defendant's contention that the Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence was not an affirmative defense but a permissible argument. Additionally, the court noted that motions to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) apply solely to pleadings, making the Plaintiff's request to strike parts of a summary judgment motion inappropriate. The court also addressed the Plaintiff's failure to properly contest affidavit evidence as per the Federal Rules. Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion to strike was denied, and the court declined to revisit previously adjudicated matters, citing prior orders. The decision underscores the necessity for Plaintiffs in conversion actions to substantiate claims of damages and the procedural limitations on motions to strike in the context of summary judgment motions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmative Defenses and Absence of Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence is not an affirmative defense and is permissible.
Reasoning: The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding essential elements of his claims, emphasizing that demonstrating a lack of proof is not an affirmative defense.
Burden of Proof in Conversion Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In a conversion action, the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove damages, which include the value difference of property when converted and when returned.
Reasoning: The court noted that in a conversion action, damages—including the difference in value of property when converted versus when returned—are essential, and the Plaintiff bears the burden to prove these damages.
Intentional Tort of Conversionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Conversion requires the Plaintiff to allege intent, and the Defendant is not required to disprove intent.
Reasoning: Conversion is established as an intentional tort requiring Plaintiff to allege intent, which Defendant is not obligated to disprove.
Motion to Strike and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The motion to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) was deemed improper as it applies only to pleadings, not to motions for summary judgment.
Reasoning: Motions to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) apply only to pleadings, and since motions for summary judgment are not pleadings, they are not subject to such motions.
Objections to Affidavit Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Objections to affidavit evidence in summary judgment motions must comply with the Federal Rules and specify grounds for objection.
Reasoning: Although Plaintiff can object to affidavit evidence in summary judgment motions, objections must comply with the Federal Rules, specifying the grounds for objection.