Prince v. St. Louis Children's Hospital

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to strike [Doc. # 35 ] is denied. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 7/28/14. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TARYN NICHELLE PRINCE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ST. LOUIS CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13-CV-2203 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to strike, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, has not filed a response to the
motion and the time allowed for doing so has expired.
Plaintiff Taryn Price is an African-American woman employed by St. Louis
Children’s Hospital. She alleges that she has been subjected to disparate treatment,
retaliation, and a hostile environment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Defendant moves to strike some
paragraphs of plaintiff’s second amended complaint, arguing that they include
immaterial information that is unrelated to the substance of the litigation.
Discussion
Courts may strike “from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Judges enjoy
liberal discretion to strike pleadings under Rule 12(f). BJC Health Sys. v. Columbia
Cas. Co., 478 F.3d 908, 917 (8th Cir. 2007). Striking a party’s pleading, however, is
an extreme and disfavored measure. Stanbury Law Firm, P.A. v. IRS, 221 F.3d 1059,
1063 (8th Cir. 2000). “A matter is immaterial or impertinent when not relevant to the

resolution of the issue at hand.” McLafferty v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Indiana, No. 14-564
DSD/SER, 2014 WL 2009086, at *3 (D. Minn. May 16, 2014) (citation omitted).
“Material is scandalous if it generally refers to any allegation that unnecessarily reflects
on the moral character of an individual or states anything in repulsive language that
detracts from the dignity of the court.” Id. Matters that are not “strictly relevant” to
the underlying claim need not be stricken if they provide “important context and
background to [a plaintiff’s] suit” or pertain to the object of the suit.

Id. (citing

Stanbury, 221 F.3d at 1063. “Matter will not be stricken unless it clearly can have no
possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation. . . If there is any doubt
whether the matter may raise an issue, the motion should be denied.” Id. (citation
omitted).
The Court has reviewed the allegations that defendant argues should be
stricken.

While these allegations may not be strictly relevant, they do

provide

important context.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to strike [Doc. #35] is
denied.

___________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 28th day of July, 2014.

-2-