Opinion
Proceeding on motion of defendant and counterplaintiff to strike reply of counterdefendants to counterplaintiff's answer to amended complaint and counterclaim. The District Court, Bauer, J., held that where reply was inartfully drawn, court would take cognizance of parts which were properly pleaded and disregard any additional language present in the reply and that the reply was not so inartfully drawn as to require that it be pleaded again, expecially where court had already read and evaluated reply, so there was nothing to gain from having pleading perfected except delay.
Motion denied.
Wallace, Shelton, Kleinman & Kalcheim, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff counter-defendant.
W. Yale Matheson, Chicago, Ill., for defendant counter-plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BAUER, District Judge.
This cause comes on the defendant and counter-plaintiff's motion to strike the reply of Modern Distributors, Inc. to defendant and counter-plaintiff's Answer to the Amended Complaint and counter-claim.
It is the opinion of this Court after examining the relevant pleadings that, while the instant reply is inartfully drawn, there would be no material benefit to having the Modern Distributors Inc. plead anew. While the Court has read the reply of Modern Distributors, Inc., the Court will take cognizance of only the parts which were properly pleaded and disregard and additional language present in the reply. Given the present philosophy of federal pleading motions to strike for a technical imperfection should not be granted. Generally a motion to strike should only be granted where allegations are clearly immaterial to controversy and are prejudicial to defendants. Canadian Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. D. Loveman & Sons, Inc., 227 F.Supp. 829 (N.D.Ohio 1964).
Modern Distributors, Inc.'s reply is not so inartfully drawn as to require that the reply be pleaded again. Further, since the Court has already read and evaluated the reply there is nothing to gain from having Modern Distributors, Inc. perfect its pleading except delay in a case in which there has been too much delay.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the instant motion to strike is denied.