United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING  MOTION
TO STRIKE; and DENYING  MOTION TO STRIKE
Nuffer District Judge.
Judge David Nuffer Defendant Stene Marshall filed two
motions: Motion to Strike in Part Plaintiff's Proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Motion to Strike
Findings and Conclusions) and Motion to Strike in Part
Plaintiff's Proposed Final Judgment (Motion to Strike
Final Judgment).Derma Pen, LLC opposes both
motions. Marshall submitted reply
memoranda. Derma Pen objected to Marshall's Reply
Supporting Motion to Strike Findings and Conclusions on
reasons stated below, both motions are DENIED.
is proceeding pro se. Therefore, his papers will be construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than work
drafted by lawyers. However, Marshall's pro se status does
not relieve him from complying with the rules, and the court
will not act as his advocate.
The Motion to Strike Findings and Conclusions is
other reasons,  Marshall's Motion to Strike Findings
and Conclusions must be denied because it does not comport
with the local rules and because a certificate of his default
has been entered.
The Motion to Strike Findings and Conclusions does not
conform with local rules.
7-1(a)(1)(B) states that a memorandum in support of a motion
must include “[o]ne or more additional sections
including a recitation of relevant facts, supporting
authority, and argument.” And DUCivR 7-1(c) states:
If any memorandum in support of or opposition to a motion
cites documents, interrogatory answers, deposition testimony,
or other discovery materials, relevant portions of those
materials must be attached to or submitted with the
memorandum when it is filed with the court and served on the
does not cite any supporting authority (legal or factual) in
the Motion to Strike Findings and Conclusions. In the Reply
Supporting Motion to Strike Findings and Conclusions,
Marshall adds what are at times cryptic references to
documentary evidence,  but fails to attach any document.
This does not suffice. A court cannot be required to hunt
through a docket containing more than a thousand entries with
many voluminous filings. The movant is obligated to marshal
the Motion to Strike Findings and Conclusions is insufficient
and merits denial.
The procedural posture prevents argument contesting
defaulting party cannot contest the fact of his liability
unless the entry of default is vacated under Rule
clerk entered a certificate of default judgment against all
defendants. None of the defendants sought to set
aside the entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55(c). Yet in this Motion to Strike Findings and
Conclusions Marshall contests liability. Therefore,
the Motion to Strike Findings and Conclusions is improper and
The Motion to Strike Final ...