Ibekwe et al v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Filing 11

ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Strike Certain Paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint 3 is DENIED. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 11/27/2012. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

CHUKS IBEKWE and
LINDA MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-2355-T-30MAP

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Strike Certain
Paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Dkt. 3) and Plaintiffs’ Response to
Defendant’s Motion to Strike Certain Paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Dkt.
8). The Court, having considered the motion, response, and being otherwise advised of the
premises, concludes that the motion to strike should be denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows a court to strike from a pleading “any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” However, motions to strike are
disfavored and usually denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the
controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties. Stapleton v. State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co., 11 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1345 (M.D. Fla. 1998).

Defendant argues that paragraphs 12-13 and 16-19 are irrelevant to the breach of
contract claim and serve only to mislead and inflame the jury by reciting statutes and alleging
facts that would serve as the basis for a bad faith action. However, the issues of relevancy
are best decided with a factual record, not on the face of the pleadings. Augustus v. Bd. of
Public Instruction of Escambia Cnty., Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962) (“Partly
because of the practical difficulty of deciding cases without a factual record it is well
established that the action of striking a pleading should be sparingly used by the courts.”
(quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States, 201 F.2d 819, 822 (6th Cir.
1953)). Additionally, there is no prejudice to the Defendant because the complaint will not
be submitted to the jury as evidence.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Certain Paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint (Dkt. 3) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 27, 2012.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2012\12-cv-2355.strikecomplaint.frm

Page 2 of 2