Marceaux et al v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government et al

Filing 77

MEMORANDUM RULING granting in part and denying in part 4 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 10/18/12. (crt,Yocum, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
KANE MARCEAUX, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-cv-01532

VERSUS

JUDGE HAIK

LAFAYETTE CONSOLIDATED
GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

MEMORANDUM RULING

Currently pending before the Court is the defendants’ motion to strike
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous material from the plaintiffs’
complaint (Rec. Doc. 4, re-urged in Rec. Doc. 65). The motion is opposed. Oral
argument was heard on October 16, 2012. For the following reasons, the motion will
be granted in part and denied in part.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This lawsuit was brought by fifteen current or former police officers with the
Lafayette, Louisiana police department, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, seeking
to recover monetary damages and other relief for alleged acts by their employer
and/or fellow officers that they claim constitutes retaliatory discharge, wrongful
discharge, and deprivation of procedural due process (Rec. Doc. 74 at p. 50, ¶ 344)

in violation of rights protected by the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs also
seek to recover under Louisiana state law. (Rec. Doc. 74 at p. 52, ¶ 353).
In this motion, the defendants seek to strike certain allegations set forth in the
plaintiff’s original complaint. Before the motion to strike was ruled upon, the
undersigned permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, and the defendants reurged the motion to strike. (Rec. Doc. 65).

ANALYSIS
The defendants’ motion to strike has two distinct parts. The defendants seek
to strike the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 23-178, 242-250, and 267-270 of the
original complaint, arguing that these allegations are either redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous. The defendants also seek to strike the plaintiffs’ claim
for punitive damages to the extent that punitive damages are sought to be recovered
from a municipality and from municipal officials acting in their official capacities.

A.

THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states: “The court may strike from a

pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” The court may do so in response to a party’s motion or on its
-2-

own motion.1 Deciding whether to strike all or a portion of a pleading lies within the
court’s discretion.2 A motion to strike under Rule 12(f) “is a drastic remedy to be
resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice.”3 Accordingly, motions
to strike made under Rule 12(f) are viewed with disfavor by the federal courts, and
are infrequently granted.4
Redundant matter consists of allegations that constitute a needless repetition
of other averments in the pleading.5 Immaterial matter is that which has no essential
or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.6
Immateriality is established by showing that the challenged allegations “can have no
possible bearing upon the subject matter of the litigation.”7 Impertinent matter

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

2

In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 248, 600 F.2d 1148,
1168–69 (5th Cir. 1979), citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382 at
807 (1969). See, also, Cambridge Toxicology Group, Inc. V. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169, 178 (5th Cir.
2007).
3

Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cnty., Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th
Cir. 1962); see also Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. V. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d
1045, 1057 (5th Cir. 1982).
4

C. Wright & A. Miller, 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc.3d § 1380.

5

C. Wright & A. Miller, 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc.3d § 1382.

6

Id.

7

Bayou Fleet Partnership, LLC v. St. Charles Parish, No. 10–1557, 2011 WL
2680686, at *5 (E.D. La. Jul. 8, 2011).

-3-

consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in
question; while scandalous matter is that which improperly casts a derogatory light
on someone, most typically on a party to the action.8 “The granting of a motion to
strike scandalous matter is aimed, in part, at avoiding prejudice to a party by
preventing a jury from seeing the offensive matter or giving the allegations any other
unnecessary notoriety inasmuch as, once filed, pleadings generally are public
documents and become generally available.”9
Therefore, a motion to strike should be granted only when “the allegations are
prejudicial to the defendant or immaterial to the lawsuit.”10

B.

THE REDUNDANT, IMMATERIAL, IMPERTINENT,
PORTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

AND

SCANDALOUS

In this case, the defendants filed a motion seeking to strike certain paragraphs
from the plaintiffs’ original complaint (Rec. Doc. 1) on the basis that they were
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous under Rule 12(f). The plaintiffs
were permitted an opportunity to amend their complaint, and they filed their first

8

C. Wright & A. Miller, 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc.3d § 1382.

9

Id.

10

Eubanks v. Jordan, No. Civ. A. 05-1532, 2006 WL 1476111, at *1 (W.D. La. May

26, 2006).

-4-

amended and supplemental complaint (Rec. Doc. 74). The amended complaint does
not fully and completely replace the original complaint. Instead, the plaintiffs
“amend, revise, restate, and generally supplement” their original complaint (Rec. Doc.
74 at p. 2) while re-alleging and re-averring “those relevant portions of” the original
complaint (Rec. Doc. 74 at ¶¶ 59, 74, 86, 93, 101, 118, 166, 183, 209, 255, 262, 272,
298, 317). Although the plaintiffs “aver that all of the objectionable allegations
identified by Defendants have been removed by way of Plaintiffs’ more recent First
Amended and Supplemental Complaint” (Rec. Doc. 71 at 5, emphasis in original),
each plaintiff expressly re-alleged and re-averred “relevant portions” of the original
complaint without identifying the parts of the original complaint that survive and
those that do not. Declining to decide what the plaintiffs believe to be relevant, the
undersigned assumes that all of the original complaint has been adopted and
incorporated by reference in the amended complaint.
Having carefully reviewed the allegations of the original complaint and the
amended complaint, the undersigned finds that the following paragraphs contain
allegations that are either redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous, as those
terms are used in Rule 12(f): ¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 30, 55-78, 82-106, 107-121, 147-162, and
242-250 of the original complaint, and ¶¶ 114-116 and 345-350 of the amended
complaint.
-5-

The undersigned finds that the allegations set forth in ¶¶ 25, 26, 27, and 30 of
the original complaint are scandalous, as that term is used for purposes of Rule 12(f),
because they serve no purpose other than to cast the Lafayette Police Department in
a poor light.11
The undersigned finds that the allegations set forth in ¶¶ 55-78, 82-106, 107121, 147-162, and 242-250 of the original complaint have no possible bearing upon
the subject matter of the litigation because they are unrelated to the events giving rise
to any of the plaintiffs’ claims. As such, these allegations are immaterial.
Similarly, the undersigned finds that the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
114-116 of the amended complaint, which are set forth in the section of the complaint
pertaining to plaintiff Novey Stelly, have no possible bearing upon the subject matter
of the litigation because they are unrelated to the events that led to Mr. Stelly’s claim
against his employer and coworkers. Therefore, these allegations are immaterial.

11

This Court notes that in the original complaint (Rec. Doc. 1) and again in the
amended complaint (Rec. Doc. 74), the plaintiffs listed “Lafayette Police Department through the
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government” as a separate defendant in the lawsuit. The
Lafayette Police Department is an agency or department of the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated
Government that does not function independently of the City. Therefore, the Lafayette Police
Department does not have the legal capacity to be sued. Cormier v. Lafayette City Parish Consol.
Government, No. 6:09-cv-0703, 2011 WL 5156862, at *3 (W.D. La. Oct. 28, 2011); Batiste v. Bonin,
No. 06-1352, 2007 WL 1791219, at *4 (W.D. La. June 13, 2007). See, also, Angers v. Lafayette
Consolidated Gov’t, No. 07-0949, 2007 WL 2908805, *3 (W.D. La. Oct. 3, 2007) (holding that
Lafayette’s Roicy Duhon Animal Shelter is not a juridical entity susceptible of being sued). This
Court therefore construes any claims alleged against the Lafayette Police Department to be brought
against the Lafayette Consolidated Government which renders these allegations impertinent as well..

-6-

The undersigned finds that Paragraphs 345-350 of the amended complaint are
comprised of legal argument interpreting a legal decision that is not controlling
precedent in this case rather than relevant factual allegations. Accordingly, these
paragraphs do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the factual issues in question and
are impertinent.
The undersigned finds that the remaining allegations of the plaintiffs’
complaint to which the defendants objected are insufficiently redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous to justify being stricken.
For these reasons, (1) these paragraphs are stricken from the original
complaint: ¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 30, 55-78, 82-106, 107-121, 147-162, 242-250; and (2)
these paragraphs are stricken from the amended complaint: ¶¶ 114-116 and 345-350.

B.

THE PLAINTIFFS’ PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM
In their original and amended complaints, the plaintiffs assert claims for

punitive damages. (Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 36, ¶ 270(L); Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 36, prayer ¶ I;
Rec. Doc. 74 at p. 54, ¶354(L); Rec. Doc. 74 at p. 55, prayer ¶ I). The defendants
contend that this claim should be stricken with regard to the claims asserted against
the City and the individual defendants who are city officials and were sued in their

-7-

official capacities, arguing that the plaintiffs in a §1983 action cannot recover
punitive damages from a municipality or its officials acting in their official capacities.
The defendants’ reasoning is sound. “It is well settled that municipalities are
not subject to the imposition of punitive damages under Section 1983.”12
Furthermore, “[i]t is equally well settled that a suit against a municipal official in his
or her official capacity is simply another way of alleging municipal liability.”13
Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiffs do not have a valid claim for punitive
damages against Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government. The court further
finds that the plaintiffs do not have a valid punitive damages claim against the
individual defendants who were sued in their official capacities because those claims
are duplicative of the punitive damages claim asserted against the city.14
Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims against the City and against the
city officials who were sued in their official capacities are stricken.

12

Howell v. Town of Ball, No. 12-951, 2012 WL 3962387, at *4 (W.D. La. Sept. 4,
2012), citing Cook County, Ill. V. U.S. ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (2003), City of Newport v.
Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981), and Webster v. City of Houston, 735 F.2d 838 (5th Cir.
1984).
13

Howell, 2012 WL 3962387, at *4, citing Monell v. New York City Department of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
14

Castro Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 355 (5th Cir. 2001).

-8-

However, punitive damages are recoverable against municipal employees who
are sued in their individual capacities pursuant to a § 1983 claim.15 Therefore, to the
extent that the plaintiffs have asserted punitive claims against individual defendants
who are city officials that were sued in their individual capacities, those claims are
not stricken.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to strike (Rec. Doc. 4, reurged in Rec. Doc. 65) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Signed this 18th day of October, 2012 at Lafayette, Louisiana.

____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15

Givs v. City of Eunice, No. 6:05-CV-0788, 2006 WL 1831528, at *1 (W.D. La. June
29, 2006), citing Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 35 (1983), and Williams v. Kaufman County, 352 F.3d
994, 1015 (5th Cir. 2003).

-9-