Summary
denying plaintiff's motion to strike because the pleadings made a legitimate dispute and plaintiffs made no showing of prejudice
Summary of this case from Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. LHC Grp. Inc.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-457, SECTION "N"
May 16, 2003
MINUTE ENTRY
Considering plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defenses Under Rule 12(f), IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
The granting of a Rule 12(f) motion "is within the discretion of the court." FDIC v. Niblo, 821 F. Supp. 441, 449 (N.D. Tex. 1993); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) (upon motion, "the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter") (emphasis added). Such motions are viewed with disfavor because they often are "sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic." FDIC v. Niblo, 821 F. Supp. 441, 449 (N.D. Tex. 1993); see also Koerner v. Garden Dist. Ass'n, 2002 WL 500817 *7 (E.D. La. 2002). Even if not intentionally dilatory, these motions often serve only to cause delay. See Minalga v. Fidelity Investments Inst'l Ops.Co., Inc., 2002 WL 31527251 *1 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Thus, they generally will not be granted unless it is shown "that the allegations being challenged are so unrelated to plaintiff's claims as to be unworthy of any consideration as a defense and that their presence in the pleading throughout the proceeding will be prejudicial to the moving party." Niblo, 821 F. Supp. at 449 (emphasis added); see also Harter v. IRS, 2002 WL 31689533 *4 (D. Haw. 2002) ("Generally, motions to strike insufficient defenses are disfavored, and, "even when technically appropriate and well-founded, they often are not granted in the absence of a showing of prejudice to the moving party.'"). Plaintiffs here have not come close to meeting this high bar. The pleadings reveal a legitimate dispute as to whether defendant's acts were discretionary and as to whether the Leviths are the proper plaintiffs to bring these claims for damages, given that they have filed for bankruptcy. Moreover, plaintiffs have made no showing that they will be prejudiced by allowing the City's defenses to remain unstricken during the discovery phase of this proceeding.