Schuck v. Littleton Auto Repair, LLC, 1:23-cv-03303

Plaintiff Cody Schuck, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is suing Littleton Auto Repair, LLC, and individuals Ken and Shannon Scholl.
Defendants filed a combined Answer to the complaint.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the Answer, arguing defendants had failed to comply with various court orders and procedural obligations.
Plaintiff cited Rule 55(a) but did not provide a cogent legal basis for striking the Answer.
The Court addressed and denied the Motion before any response from Defendants was filed, analyzing it under Rule 12(f).
The Court found the Plaintiff failed to meet the heavy burden required to strike a pleading under Rule 12(f).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should Defendants' Answer be stricken for failing to comply with court orders and procedural rules?	Argued Defendants failed to appear through counsel, failed to respond to Plaintiff motions and communications, and generally failed to participate, citing Rule 55(a).	No response filed prior to ruling.	Court denied the motion, finding no sufficient legal basis or demonstration of prejudice or insufficient/immaterial content in the Answer.

Sierra Club v. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Ass’n, Inc., 173 F.R.D. 275 (D. Colo. 1997) (explains strict standards and disfavored nature of motions to strike under Rule 12(f))