M.W. et al v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 94

ORDER granting in part and denying in part #88 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 10/13/2015. (KTW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
M.W., ANASTAZIA J. WOOD, JUSTIN
WOOD and SUZANNE MCCARTHY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-3132-T-24TBM

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion to Strike
Portions of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 88) and Plaintiffs’ Response in
Opposition (Dkt. 93).
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs originally brought this action in state court, against Ford Motor Company

(“Ford”), and several other Defendants for product liability and negligence.1 Ford removed the
case to federal court.2 Ford filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and motion to strike
portions thereof (Dkt. 9), which the Court converted to a motion for summary judgment on May
12, 2015 (Dkt. 56). On August 12, 2015, the Court granted Ford’s motion in part and ordered
Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. (Dkt. 79). The Order directed to Plaintiffs to limit
the second amended complaint’s “allegations regarding the nature of park-to-reverse defects, any
accident records related to such defects, and Ford’s knowledge thereof, to the subject vehicle, the

1

See Dkt. 79 for a detailed discussion of the background in this case.
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Dkt. 2) was filed concurrently with Ford’s Notice of removal on December 16,
2014.

2

2009 Ford Focus.” (Dkt. 79 at 13). Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 26,
2015.
Ford now moves to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.
II.

DISCUSSION
Ford requests the Court strike paragraphs 19, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 50(b), 50(c), 51, and

52 of the Second Amended Complaint because they include allegations related to Ford vehicles
other than the 2009 Ford Focus. Ford contends that such allegations are immaterial, impertinent,
and/or scandalous. Plaintiffs argue that the allegations in question are relevant and material
because they relate directly to “Plaintiffs’ claims of existing defects and Ford’s knowledge
thereof…” (Dkt. 93 at 1). Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that at a minimum, allegations concerning
earlier models of the Ford Focus are relevant because Ford’s design analysis engineer testified at
a deposition that the transmission in the 2009 Ford Focus contained a generally similar design to
the transmissions contained in the 2001 through 2011 model years.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), the Court may strike “an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Id. However, “[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.’” Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 57 F.Supp.2d
1327, 1347 (M.D. Fla.1999) (quoting Seibel v. Society Lease, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 713, 715 (M.D.
Fla.1997)). The purpose of Rule 12(f) is to “clean up the pleadings, streamline litigation, and avoid
unnecessary forays into immaterial matters.” Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 938 F. Supp. 2d
1238, 1250 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (citing Slone v. Judd, No. 8:09–cv–1175–T–27TGW, 2009 WL
5214984, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2009) (quotation omitted)).

2

The Second Amended Complaint alleges that a park-to-reverse defect in 2009 Ford Focus
caused the rented vehicle to unexpectedly roll down Plaintiff McCarthy’s driveway, injuring
Plaintiffs M.W. and McCarthy. Plaintiffs allege that Ford had knowledge of a park-to-reverse
defect in the 2009 Ford Focus and were aware of the need to design its automatic transmission to
prevent such a defect. In light of the deposition testimony of Ford’s design analysis engineer that
the Ford Focus model years 2001 through 2011 maintained a generally similar design (Dkt. 93-2,
33:4-15), the Court finds that allegations related to other model years of the Ford Focus are relevant
to the controversy herein. However, with regard to allegations concerning other Ford models and
Ford’s knowledge of purported defects therein, the Court finds that such allegations are not related
to the controversy in the instant case and may cause prejudice to Ford. Therefore, to the extent that
paragraphs 19, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 50(b), 50(c), 51, and 52 contain allegations not related to the
Ford Focus, such allegations must be stricken.3 See e.g. Seibel, 969 F. Supp. at 715 (holding that
allegations that have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the
parties may be stricken pursuant to Rule 12(f))); Halifax Paving Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 2006
WL 3708090 at *2 (M.D. Fla. December 14, 2006) (finding that allegations that are prejudicial to
the opposing party, and irrelevant to the asserted claims should be stricken).
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Ford Motor Company’s

Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 88) is granted in part
and denied in part to the extent that allegations related to Ford models other than the Ford Focus
are hereby stricken.

3

The Court notes that Ford’s design analysis engineer testified that 2001 was the first model year of the Ford Focus.
(Dkt. 93-2, 33:7-9). Therefore, any allegations regarding Ford vehicles prior to 2001 are not related to the Ford Focus
and must be stricken.

3

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of October, 2015.

Copies To: Counsel of Record and Parties

4