U-Save Auto Rental of America, Inc. v. Sandford Miller

Filing 74

ORDER denying 13 Motion to Strike Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 10/31/2013 (Guirola, Louis)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
U-SAVE AUTO RENTAL OF AMERICA, INC.
v.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 3:13CV127-LG-JMR

THOMAS P. McDONNELL, III, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSE
BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion to Strike Failure to State a Claim
Defense [13] that was filed by the plaintiff U-Save Auto Rental of America, Inc. USave argues that the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) defense included in the defendant
Sanford Miller’s Answer [9] should be stricken as insufficient. Miller has filed a
response in opposition to the Motion, and U-Save has filed a reply. Upon reviewing
the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, the Court finds that the
Motion to Strike should be denied.
BACKGROUND
U-Save filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against its former
executive employee Sanford Miller, asking the Court to adjudicate the parties’
rights and obligations under an Executive Employment Agreement. U-Save has
filed a Motion to Strike the following defense asserted in Miller’s Answer: “The
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (Miller Answer
at 1, ECF No. 9).
DISCUSSION
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) provides, “The Court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

matter.” Motions to strike defenses are generally disfavored and are rarely granted.
Kaiser v. Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d
1045, 1057 (5th Cir. 1982); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Niblo, 821 F. Supp. 441, (N.D.
Tex. 1993) (explaining that striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy and
that motions to strike are often used as dilatory tactics). Thus, a Rule 12(f) motion
to dismiss a defense is proper only when the defense is insufficient as a matter of
law. Kaiser, 677 F.2d at 1057. “To prevail under Rule 12(f), the movant must show
that ‘the allegations being challenged are so unrelated to plaintiff’s claims as to be
unworthy of any consideration as a defense and that their presence in the pleading
throughout the proceeding will be prejudicial to the moving party.’” Adams Cty.
Water Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Natchez, Miss., No. 5:10CV199-DCB-RHW, 2012 WL
463740 at *2 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 13, 2012). These requirements constitute a “high bar”
for the movant to cross. Id.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1) states, “In responding to a pleading, a party must . . .
state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it . . . .”
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide the following example of a suitable
Rule 12(b)(6) defense: “The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Form 30. Therefore, it cannot be said that Miller’s defense
containing the same language is insufficient as a matter of law. In addition, USave cannot demonstrate that the defense is unrelated to its claims or unworthy of
any consideration.
The Court further finds that U-Save’s argument that it is prejudiced by the
-2-

defense is without merit. Contrary to its assertions, discovery would not be
necessary to determine the basis or merit of Miller’s defense. Analysis of a Rule
12(b)(6) defense or motion is based solely on the pleadings, not additional evidence.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
Finally, the Court notes that U-Save did not file a memorandum in support of
its Motion to Strike. Rule 7(b)(4) of the Local Uniform Civil Rules of the United
States District Courts for the Northern District of Mississippi and the Southern
District of Mississippi provides, “At the time the motion is served, other than
motions or applications that may be heard ex parte or those involving necessitous or
urgent matters, counsel for movant must file a memorandum brief in support of the
motion.” (Emphasis added). U-Save is cautioned that it should be guided by this
Rule when filing motions in the future.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that U-Save’s Motion to Strike
should be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to
Strike Failure to State a Claim Defense [13] that was filed by the plaintiff U-Save
Auto Rental of America, Inc., is DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 31st day of October, 2013.
s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-