MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Ameren Illinois

Filing 25

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Prayer for Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/23/2018. (ceh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 18-1066-DRH-SCW

AMEREN ILLINOIS,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
HERNDON, District Judge:
Before the Court is defendant Ameren Illinois’ (“Ameren”) Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Attorney’s Fees (doc. 10). Ameren alleges that MCI is not
entitled to legal fees and expenses in connection with this litigation alleging breach
of a construction agreement between the two parties. Rather, Ameren argues the
contract language MCI points to in support of attorney’s fees demonstrates that
MCI is only entitled to legal expenses in connection with the previous
construction, which was completed in or around March 2015.

Plaintiff MCI

Communications Services, Inc. (“MCI”) filed its response on July 20, 2018 (doc.
10) and argues that defendant strains the interpretation of the contract language
in question and has not met the high burden needed to grant a motion to strike
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). For the following, the Court DENIES
the motion to strike (doc. 10).
1

Ameren’s motion to strike plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees and legal
expenses is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). That rule states a court
may strike from a pleading any “insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Id. The burden on a motion to
strike lays with the movant and a court “will not strike a matter from a complaint
‘unless it is clear that it can have no bearing on the matter of the litigation.”
Woodson v. Cook County Sheriff, 21 A.D.D. 357 (N.D.Ill. 1996) quoting Patel v.
Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, No. 92 C 8300, 1995 WL
573418, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 22, 1995). It is too early at this stage in the litigation
to determine if the claim for legal fees and expenses has “no bearing” on the
underlying issues.
The contested language reads:
“Reimbursor [Ameren] agrees to bear all direct and indirect costs
incurred by MCI and relating to any construction by MCI in connection
with the Project, including, but not limited to, labor, materials,
construction, damages, administrative overhead, taxes, travel expenses,
legal fees and other reasonable out of pocket expenses.”
By the plain language of the parties’ agreement, such legal fees are contemplated
as possible areas of reimbursement by defendant to plaintiff “in connection with
the [construction] Project.”

As this litigation arises from a dispute regarding

payment for the construction work performed by plaintiff, it is a logical reading of
the disputed contract language that legal fees incurred in connection with
enforcing said contract would be covered reimbursed expenses that cannot be
considered “impertinent” or “insufficient.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
2

Because there is clear contractual language providing for the payment of
legal expenses, the “American Rule” stating that attorney’s fees are not generally
recoverable, Negro Nest, LLC v. Mid-N. Mgmt., Inc., 362 Ill. App. 3d 640, 642
(2005), is not applicable here. At this juncture, plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees
and legal expenses is based on contractual authority and accordingly, the prayer
for relief is meritorious. Defendant has not met the high burden of Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(f) to strike the request by demonstrating that it has no bearing on the litigation
or is so unrelated to be void of merit. Robinson v. Midlane Club, Inc., 1994 WL
577219 at *2 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 18, 1994). Accordingly, defendant Ameren’s motion to
strike (doc. 10) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.10.23
17:24:25 -05'00'
United States District Judge

3