CrossFit, Inc. v. Mustapha et al

Filing 31

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. Plaintiff's 23 Motion to Strike is GRANTED. (Cicolini, Pietro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
CROSSFIT, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Civil Action No.
v.
)
13-11498-FDS
)
DONNY MUSTAPHA and CHELMSFORD )
)
SPORTS CLUB,
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
SAYLOR, J.
This is an action for trademark infringement. Plaintiff CrossFit, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation principally engaged in the business of fitness training. Defendant Donny Mustapha
runs the Chelmsford Sports Club in North Chelmsford, Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleges
defendants have infringed on their registered “Crossfit” mark.
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction against defendants’ use of the mark was
granted by order of the Court on September 30, 2013. Plaintiff also moved to strike, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), certain statements made in the affidavit of Donny Mustapha offered in
support of defendants’ opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. For the following
reasons, that motion will be granted.1
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), the Court may strike from a pleading “any redundant,

1

The Court did not rely on any of the challenged potions of the affidavit when deciding the preliminary
injunction motion.

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” However, Rule 12(f) specifically gives the Court
discretion as to whether or not to strike a particular matter, and motions to strike are generally
disfavored. See Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Watts Regulator Co., 796 F. Supp. 2d 240, 246 (D. Mass.
2011) (citing Soni v. Boston Med. Ctr. Corp., 683 F. Supp. 2d 74, 92 (D. Mass. 2009);
Alvarado-Morales v. Digital Equip. Corp., 843 F.2d 613, 618 (1st Cir. 1988)).
The challenged portions of the affidavit contain argument, inadmissible opinion, pure
legal conclusions, and/or hearsay not within the declarant’s personal knowledge. Such
statements, at a minimum, are immaterial because they are not helpful to the trier of fact when
considering a motion for preliminary injunction. They will accordingly be struck. See, e.g.,
Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 463 F. Supp. 2d 127, 131 (D. Mass. 2006);
Unleashed Doggie Day Care, LLC v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 6812642,
at *7 n.1 (D. Mass. Dec. 28, 2011); Bumpus v. National Credit Union Admin., 1992 WL 97984,
at *2 (D. Mass. Apr. 29, 1992).
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to strike is GRANTED.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Dated: October 18, 2013

2