Catching v. Reuter

Summary

The court grants Plaintiff Ronald Catching’s motion to strike Defendant Jason Reuter’s answer for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b). The court gives Reuter, who is proceeding pro se, until March 24, 2026, to file a compliant amended answer and warns that failure to do so may result in entry of default.

Holdings

1. Reuter's answer did not comply with Rule 8(b) because it did not specifically admit or deny any of the allegations in the complaint and did not state his defenses in short and plain terms.
2. Reuter could not rely on a general denial because his answer did not challenge the court's jurisdiction or venue, and the complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction under the FLSA, which could not be denied in good faith.
3. The court granted the motion to strike and allowed Reuter until March 24, 2026, to file a Rule 8-compliant amended answer.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Reuter's answer complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)'s requirements to state defenses in short and plain terms and admit, deny, or properly address the allegations in the complaint.
2. Whether Reuter could rely on a general denial when he did not challenge the court's jurisdiction or venue.
3. Whether the noncompliant answer should be stricken and Reuter given an opportunity to file an amended answer.

Disposition

other