Contino et al v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting Defendants' 8 Motion to Strike 1 Complaint, because Plaintiffs do not oppose it. It shall simply remain understood between the Court and the parties that the last bullet point under Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint serves no operative purpose. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 4/28/2015. (ca)

in tJe aniteb tate flitrid Court
for the 6outbern 38th6trw of deorgia
39runObAck flibiion
MEGAN CONTINO and BRIAN
CONTINO,
Plaintiffs,
CV 214-146
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC. d/bla
Winn Dixie #166; OPAL HOLDINGS,
LLC, dlb/a Winn Dixie #166;
OPAL MERGER SUB, INC., d/b/a
Winn Dixie #166 BI-LO, LLC,
d/b/a/ Winn Dixie #166; and BILO HOLDING, LLC, d/b/a Winn
Dixie #166,
Defendants.
ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Strike
a small portion of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Dkt. no. 8.
Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Defendants' negligence in one
of its grocery stores caused Plaintiff Megan Contino to slip,
fall, and sustain injuries. Dkt. no. 1 ("Complaint"), ¶91 10-19.
Paragraph 20 of the Complaint alleges ordinary negligence
against Defendant Winn-Dixie Stores, and the final bullet point
under Paragraph 20 alleges that Defendant was negligent by
"failing to perform such other acts as may be revealed during
AO 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

I

discovery in this matter." Compi. ¶ 20. Defendants' Motion seeks
to strike this single bullet point from the Complaint. Dkt. no.
8, P. 1.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), "[t]he court
may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(f). The court has broad discretion in ruling on a
motion to strike. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Youngblood, 807 F.
Supp. 765, 769 (N.D. Ga. 1992). However, motions to strike are
not generally favored. Id.
Defendants argue that the vague fragment from Paragraph 20
of Plaintiffs' Complaint "is purely boilerplate surplusage" that
does not put Defendants "on reasonable notice of alleged acts or
omissions to which they should respond or must defend against."
Dkt. no. 8, p. 1. Defendants appear to fear that Plaintiffs may
improperly rely on this catch-all allegation to encompass
unforeseen evidence of negligence produced during discovery
rather than amending their Complaint pursuant to Rule 15. Id. at
2.
Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants' request for the Court
to redact the Complaint by striking "the lone sentence fragment"
in Paragraph 20. Dkt. no. 21, p. 1. While Rule 12(f) motions are
generally disfavored, the Court will GRANT Defendants' motion
(Dkt. no. 8) because Plaintiffs do not oppose it. Plaintiffs
AO 72A
(Rev. 8182)

2
2
I

need not delete the disputed bullet point from the Complaint or
otherwise file and serve an Amended Complaint for Damages on all
parties. It shall simply remain understood between the Court and
the parties that the last bullet point under Paragraph 20 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint serves no operative purpose.

SO ORDERED, this 28TH day of April, 2015.

LISA GODBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)