11 F.R.D. 594 | D. Minnesota | 1951
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned, one of the judges of the above-named Court, at a Special Term thereof, at Duluth, Minnesota, on the 1st day of June, 1951, upon the motions of plaintiff (1) to strike paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of defendant’s answer, and (2) to make said answer more definite and certain.
This action was brought under the so-called Jones Act.
Defendant answered, pleading by general denial, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and that plaintiff and defendant were at all times subject to and within the purview of the applicable Compensation Acts. The motion to strike is directed at defendant’s pleas of the Minnesota Workmen’s Compensation Act
The motion to make more definite and certain is limited to plaintiff’s request that defendant affirm or deny plaintiff’s allegations that plaintiff was “a member of the crew” and that the dredge was “enrolled and licensed” as a vessel.
Motions to strike are not regarded with favor by the Courts
The motion to strike paragraph 7 of the answer, pertaining to maintenance and cure, is granted.
The motion to strike paragraphs 5 and 6 of the answer is denied.
The motion to make the answer more definite and certain is denied, as the information here sought can be obtained by means of discovery under the Rules.
It is so ordered.
Exceptions are allowed both parties.
. Rule 12(f) and (e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
. 46 U.S.C.A. § 688.
. 13 M.S.A. § 176.01 et seq.
. 33 U.S.C.A. § 902(3).
. 3 Ohlinger’s Federal Practice (Revised Edition) 218.
. Kibadeaux v. Standard Dredging Co., 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 670; Schantz v. American Dredging Co., 3 Cir., 138 F.2d 534; Gahagan Const. Corporation v. Armao, 1 Cir., 165 F.2d 301.