Catching v. Reuter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
RONALD CATCHING,
Plaintiff.
V.
JASON REUTER,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-00400
OPINION AND ORDER1
Plaintiff Ronald Catching has filed a motion to strike Defendant Jason
Reuter’s answer (Dkt. 15). See Dkt. 16. For the reasons discussed below, the motion
is granted.
BACKGROUND
Catching instituted this lawsuit against Reuter, d/b/a Darlene’s Shrimp
Shack, asserting violations of the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), violations of the minimum wage provisions
under the Texas Labor Code, and breach of contract. See Dkt. 1.
On February 6, 2026, Reuter, who is representing himself, filed an answer
using a form for pro se defendants. See Dkt. 15. Section II.A of the form instructs
the filer on how to answer the claims for relief:
On a separate page or pages, write a short and plain statement
of the answer to the allegations in the complaint. Number the
paragraphs. The answer should correspond to each paragraph in the
complaint, 	with 	paragraph 	1 	of 	the answer corresponding 	to
paragraph 	1 	of 	the 	complaint, 	etc. 	For 	each 	paragraph 	in 	the
complaint, state whether: the defendant admits the allegations in that
paragraph; denies the allegations; lacks sufficient knowledge to admit
1 “When the magistrate judge finds that dismissal or another sanction disposing of a claim
or defense [is] unwarranted, the motions should be characterized as non-dispositive and
may be ruled on by the magistrate judge.” Carter v. H2R Rest. Holdings, LLC, No. 3:16-
cv-1554, 2016 WL 11664124, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2016). Because I am giving Reuter
leave to file a Rule 8-compliant answer, my ruling is not dispositive of a claim or defense.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:25-cv-00400 Document 22 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
or deny the allegations; or admits certain allegations but denies, or
lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny, the rest.
Id. at 1.
Reuter 	did not file 	or 	attach 	any 	response 	to 	his 	form 	answer. 	In
the form section for presenting defenses, Reuter merely states that “[t]he alleged
claim in which the plaintiff seeks have been paid.” Id. at 2. In the form section for
asserting affirmative defenses, Reuter states that “[a]ll compensation has been
paid.” Id. at 4. Aside from asserting a counterclaim for conversion, this is the
entirety of Reuter’s response to the complaint.
On March 2, 2026, Catching filed the instant motion requesting that
Reuter’s answer be stricken because:
The Answer filed by Defendant wholly failed to state in short
and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against Defendant,
failed to admit or deny a single allegation asserted against Defendant
in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and failed to fairly respond to the substance
of a single allegation as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A), Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(B), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(2).
Dkt. 16 at 2. Catching also asserts that Reuter’s “answer makes a blanket assertion
denying Plaintiff’s claim,” constituting an impermissible general denial. Id. at 3.
Reuter’s response to Catching’s motion is not due until March 23, 2026. I see no
reason to await Reuter’s response, however, because nothing he could say would
change the outcome.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 8(b) sets forth the requirements for responding to claims:
(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must:
(A) state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim
asserted against it; and
(B) admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an
opposing party.
(2) Denials—Responding 	to 	the 	Substance. 	A 	denial 	must 	fairly
respond to the substance of the allegation.
(3) General and Specific Denials. A party that intends in good faith to
deny all the allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional
Case 3:25-cv-00400 Document 22 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
grounds—may 	do 	so 	by 	a 	general 	denial. A 	party
that does not intend 	to 	deny 	all 	the 	allegations 	must 	either
specifically 	deny 	designated 	allegations 	or 	generally 	deny 	all
except those specifically admitted.
(4) Denying Part of an Allegation. A party that intends in good faith
to deny only part of an allegation must admit the part that is true
and deny the rest.
(5) Lacking 	Knowledge 	or 	Information. 	A 	party 	that 	lacks
information 	sufficient 	to form a 	belief 	about 	the 	truth 	of 	an
allegation must so state, and the statement has the effect of a
denial.
(6) Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other than one relating
to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is
required and the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading
is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b).
A 	general denial—that 	is, 	an 	answer 	denying 	all 	allegations 	in 	the
complaint—is prohibited in all but the most exceptional of cases. See F.M.D.
Holdings, LLC v. Regent Fin. Corp., No. 5:20-cv-269, 2021 WL 5883136, at *7
(N.D. 	Tex. 	Dec. 	10, 	2021). 	In 	simple 	terms, 	Rule 	8(b) 	requires 	that 	a
defendant’s denial “fairly respond to the substance of the allegation” by either
(1) admitting or denying the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party,
or (2) stating that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of an allegation. “Rule 8 ensures that the plaintiff is aware of the
allegations in the complaint that the defendant admits and those that he contests,
so the plaintiff knows what he will need to prove at trial.” SEC v. Kirchner, No.
4:23-cv-0147, 2023 WL 5322433, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 14, 2023) (quotation
omitted).
While a pro se litigant’s petitions and pleadings are liberally construed,
basic procedural pleading obligations still apply. See F.M.D. Holdings, LLC, 2021
WL 5883136, at *7. “‘[P]ro se litigants must conform to the same rules that are no
doubt more easily understood by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Propes v. Quarterman,
573 F.3d 225, 232 (5th Cir. 2009)).
Case 3:25-cv-00400 Document 22 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
REUTER MUST COMPLY WITH RULE 8
Reuter’s answer fails to comply with Rule 8’s requirements. It does not
specifically admit or deny any of Catching’s allegations. Further, because Reuter’s
answer does not challenge the court’s jurisdiction or venue, it is not construed as a
general denial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(3). Reuter cannot assert a general denial,
because Catching invokes this court’s federal question jurisdiction under the
FLSA—which cannot be denied in good faith. See Poole v. Dhiru Hosp., LLC, No.
SA-18-cv-636, 2018 WL 7297891, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2018) (“General denials
are only appropriate when all allegations brought in the complaint, including
jurisdiction, are in good faith denied by a party.” (emphasis added)). As written,
Reuter’s answer does not comply with the Federal Rules and must be stricken. See
United 	States 	v. 	Gentletouch 	Healthcare, 	Inc., 	No. 	A-21-cv-725, 	2021 	WL
8443764, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2021) (striking answer that failed to comply with
Rule 8).
Because Reuter is representing himself, I will afford him an opportunity to
file an amended answer that complies with Rule 8’s requirements. Reuter may
choose to “either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all
except those specifically admitted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(3). Reuter may also choose,
as many defendants do, to specifically deny or admit each allegation in the
complaint. Whichever route Reuter chooses, he must “state in short and plain
terms [his] defenses to each claim asserted against [him]” and “admit or deny the
allegations asserted against [him].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1). Failure to properly
answer the complaint risks any non-compliant answer being stricken and the
clerk’s entry of default against Reuter.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Catching’s motion to strike (Dkt. 16) is
granted. I will give Reuter until Tuesday, March 24, 2026, to file a Rule 8-
compliant answer. Failure to file a Rule 8-compliant answer by March 24, 2026,
risks a clerk’s entry of default.
Case 3:25-cv-00400 Document 22 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
SIGNED this 	day of March 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00400 Document 22 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5