Corcoran Consulting, LLC et al v. CREMServices, LLC et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying #62 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 11/7/2017. (dam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CORCORAN CONSULTING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CREMSERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:17 CV 803 MJR/RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Robert Corcoran and Real Estate Learning
Institute, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Corcoran Consulting, LLC, and B & B Mill Consulting, Inc.’s
Affirmative Defenses.1 (Doc. 62.) On July 27, 2017, Plaintiffs commenced this action, invoking
federal question jurisdiction and alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18
U.S.C. § 1030, et seq., as well as various state law claims. (Doc. 1.) On August 29, 2017,
Defendants filed a counterclaim against Plaintiffs, alleging state law claims. (Doc. 36.) On
September 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed answers to Defendants’ counterclaim and asserted
affirmative defenses. (Docs. 55, 56.)
On October 18, 2017, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike several of Plaintiff’s
affirmative defenses, arguing that the affirmative defenses fail as a matter of law. (Doc. 62.)
Specifically, Defendants request that the Court strike the second, third, fourth and fifth
affirmative defenses of Plaintiffs to Count I of the counterclaim and the second affirmative
defense of Plaintiff Corcoran Consulting, LLC, to Count II of the counterclaim. “The court may

1

For ease for reference, this Order will refer to Robert Corcoran and Real Estate Learning Institute, Inc., as
“Defendants,” and will refer to Corcoran Consulting, LLC, and B & B Mill Consulting, Inc., as “Plaintiffs.”

strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); Delta Consulting Group, Inc. v. R. Randle Const.,
Inc., 554 F.3d 1133, 1141 (7th Cir. 2009). Motions to strike are disfavored, however, and will
generally be denied unless the portion of the pleading at issue is clearly prejudicial and of no
possible relevance to the controversy at issue. Heller v. Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883
F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir.1989); Tektel, Inc. v. Maier, 813 F.Supp. 1331, 1334 (N.D.Ill. 1992).
Prejudice results, for instance, where the challenged allegation has the effect of confusing the
issues or is so lengthy and complex that it places an undue burden on the responding party.
Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc. v. Peters, 983 F.Supp. 787, 798 (N.D.Ill. 1997). The determination of
whether to strike under Rule 12(f) is within the discretion of the trial court. Talbot v. Robert
Matthews Distributing Co., 961 F.2d 654, 664 (7th Cir. 1992).
Defendants do not argue that allowing the affirmative defenses to remain would cause
prejudice, nor do Defendants argue that the affirmative defenses are wholly irrelevant to the
controversy at issue. In the absence of any showing of prejudice or of clear immateriality,
Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 62) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 7, 2017

s/
Reona J. Daly
l
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2