Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC v. Hernandez, 7:16-cv-00336

Plaintiff Aramark sued defendant David A. Hernandez; Hernandez filed two initial documents purporting to be answers on Nov 1–2, 2016.
The court ordered corrections on Dec 1, 2016, noting the filings lacked a signature, address, email, telephone, and a certificate of service under Rules 11(a) and 5(d)(1). Defendant was given until Dec 19, 2016 to cure the deficiencies.
On Dec 19, 2016, Hernandez filed an amended answer that corrected the technical defects but also changed responses to allegations and added affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff moved to strike the amended answer, arguing the changes exceeded the limited permission in the Dec 1 order and required leave under Rule 15(a)(2).
The court acknowledged defendant should have sought leave before making substantive changes but declined to strike the amended answer because there was no bad faith, undue prejudice to plaintiff, or futility, and Rule 15 favors liberal amendment.
The court emphasized that its ruling was not based on Hernandez’s pro se status and reminded him that pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amended answer should be struck because it exceeded the limited corrections permitted (and required leave under Rule 15)	The amended answer made substantive changes and added affirmative defenses beyond mere technical corrections ordered by the court, so it should be struck for noncompliance and because amendment required leave	Defendant corrected the specified defects and filed the amended answer; impliedly contends the filing should stand (no showing of bad faith or prejudice)	Court agreed leave should have been sought but denied motion to strike: no bad faith, no undue prejudice, Rule 15 favors allowing amendments; amended answer is permitted

First Fin. Sav. Bank v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co., 783 F. Supp. 963 (E.D.N.C. 1991) (motions to strike are a drastic remedy and infrequently granted)
Morrisroe v. Goldsboro Milling Co., 884 F. Supp. 192 (E.D.N.C. 1994) (motions to strike defenses are generally disfavored and usually denied absent showing of prejudice)
Haught v. Louis Berkman, LLC, 377 F. Supp. 2d 543 (N.D.W. Va. 2005) (burden of proof on a motion to strike lies with the moving party)
Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (Rule 15 is liberal to resolve cases on the merits rather than on technicalities)
Intown Props. Mgmt., Inc. v. Transcom, Ins. Co., 271 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 2001) (Rule 15 should be construed liberally so claims are adjudicated on the merits)
United States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend denied only for bad faith, undue prejudice, or futility)