Jablonski v. The Travelers Companies, Inc.
ORDER granting 94 the Defendant Travelers Companies, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaints 79 and 91 . The Clerk of the Court is directed to STRIKE 79 and 91 from the record and remove them from the docket sheet. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 10/11/2016. (LMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EDWARD J. JABLONSKI,
Case No: 2:15-cv-365-FtM-38CM
THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES,
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant Travelers Companies, Inc.'s
Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaints (Doc. ## 79 and 91) (Doc. #94)
filed on September 30, 2016. No response was filed by the Plaintiff and none is needed
to resolve the issue presented in the Motion.
On June 14, 2016, the Court granted Traveler’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #76) with
prejudice. The Clerk of the Court subsequently entered a final judgment on June 15,
2016. Plaintiff has also filed two Motions to reopen the case—both of which were denied.
Since then Plaintiff has filed two Third Amended Complaints (Doc. #79, 91). Travelers
now moves the Court to Strike the Third Amended Complaints.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the Court may order “any
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” be
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not
endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that
a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
stricken from a pleading. Harvey v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2005 WL 1421170 (M.D.
Fla. June 17, 2005). In evaluating a motion to strike, the court must treat all well pleaded
facts as admitted and cannot consider matters beyond the pleadings. Microsoft Corp. v.
Jesse’s Computers & Repair, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 681, 683 (M.D. Fla. 2002). A motion to
strike will usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the
controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties. Harvey, 2005 WL 1421170
(citing Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1347 (M.D.
In this instance, Plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed with prejudice and the Court
has denied Plaintiff’s motions to reopen the case. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaints
would cause extreme prejudice to Travelers because they allege claims against Travelers
that have already been dismissed with prejudice. As such, good cause exists to strike
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaints from the record.
Accordingly, it is now
The Defendant Travelers Companies, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Third
Amended Complaints (Doc. ## 79 and 91) (Doc. #94) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to STRIKE (Doc. ##79 and 91) from the record and remove them from
the docket sheet.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 11th day of October, 2016.
Copies: All Parties of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?