Taser International, Inc. v. Stinger Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 282

ORDER Denying 251 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/2/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10
11

TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Case No. 2:09-cv-00289-MMD-PAL

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER
13
14
15

v.
STINGER SYSTEMS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Before the Court is Defendant James F. McNulty’s motion to strike (dkt. no. 251).
Good cause appearing, McNulty’s motion is denied.

19

McNulty seeks to strike Paragraph 20 of TASER’s Second Amended Complaint

20

(“SAC”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) on the grounds that the paragraph in question is

21

immaterial and prejudicial to the Defendants. However, McNulty had earlier admitted the

22

same paragraph’s allegations in his Answer to the SAC. (See dkt. no. 92.) Courts

23

generally disfavor motions to strike. See Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F.

24

Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D.Cal.1991) (“[M]otions to strike should not be granted unless it is

25

clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter

26

of the litigation.”); Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1478 (C.D. Cal. 1996)

27

(“Rule 12(f) motions are generally disfavored because they are often used as delaying

28

tactics, and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice.”).

1

Moreover, Rule 12(f) motions must be “made by a party either before responding to the

2

pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the

3

pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). McNulty had already responded to the SAC, and

4

cannot now ask the Court to strike the pleading. See Culinary and Service Employees

5

Union, AFL-CIO Local 555 v. Hawaii Employee Ben. Admin., 688 F.2d 1228, 1232 (9th

6

Cir. 1982) (holding that it was error for district court to grant a motion to strike where

7

motion was filed after the party had answered the complaint).

8
9

IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant McNulty’s motion to strike (dkt. no. 251) is
DENIED.

10
11

ENTERED THIS 2nd day of August 2012.

12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2