U-Haul Co. of Nevada, Inc. et al v. Gregory J. Kamer, Ltd. et al

Filing 178

ORDER Granting 17 Defendant's Motion to Strike Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 02/21/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
12
U-HAUL CO. OF NEVADA, INC., et al.,
13
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:12-CV-00231-KJD-CWH

14
v.

ORDER

15
GREGORY J. KAMER, LTD., et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
Before the Court is the Motion to Strike Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
19
(#17) filed by Defendant Debra Wilcher. Plaintiff filed a response (#25) to which Defendant Wilcher
20
filed a Reply (#17).
(#34).
21
I. Discussion
22
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows the Court to “strike from a pleading an
23
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Matter is
24
considered “immaterial” if it has no bearing on the controversy before the Court. In re TheMart.com,
25
Inc. Sec. Litig., 114 F.Supp.2d 955, 965 (C.D.Cal.2000). Allegations are “impertinent” if they are
26

1

not responsive to the issues that arise in the action and are inadmissible as evidence. Id.

2

“Scandalous” matter has been described to include allegations that cast a cruelly derogatory light on

3

a party or other person. Id. (citing Skadegaard v. Farrell, 578 F.Supp. 1209, 1221 (D.N.J.1984).

4

Striking material pursuant to Rule 12(f) is considered a “drastic remedy” that is “generally

5

disfavored” by federal courts. Nevada Fair Housing Center, Inc. v. Clark County, 565 F.Supp.2d

6

1178 (D.Nev.2008) (citing Germaine Music v. Universal Songs of Polygram, 275 F.Supp.2d 1288,

7

1300 (D.Nev.2003); See also Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F.Supp. 1450, 1478 (C.D.Cal.1996) (“Rule

8

12(f) motions are generally disfavored because they are often used as delaying tactics, and because of

9

the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice.”) (citations omitted).

10

Despite its general disfavor, however, a district court’s ruling on a motion to strike is

11

reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. See Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters., Inc.,

12

397 F.3d 1217, 1224 n. 4 (9th Cir.2005). This is because the essential function of a Rule 12(f)

13

motion is to “avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues

14

by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th

15

Cir.1993) (rev'd on other grounds Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. 510 U.S. 517 (1994)).

16
17
18

Defendant Wilcher moves the Court to strike the following paragraph from the complaint:
Upon information an belief, Ms. Wilcher became pregnant with Mr.
Albright’s child during the Affair, but aborted the pregnancy at Mr. Albright’s
insistence and in return for his promise that they would “run away together.”

19

Plaintiff argues that “the fact of the pregnancy evince[es] a highly intimate relationship

20

between the co-conspirators, one that is probative of the information the two shared with each other.”

21

Plaintiff further asserts that the decision to terminate the pregnancy “may have some bearing on the

22

fact that they were employed by adversaries in a proceeding and knew their conduct was improper.”

23

Ms. Wilcher has admitted to having a sexual relationship with Mr. Albright. Despite

24

Plaintiff’s gross speculation, nothing suggests that Ms. Wilcher’s pregnancy and subsequent decision

25

to terminate her pregnancy has any significance to the claims and defenses in this action. It is

26

difficult for the Court to imagine any purpose for including this allegation in the complaint, other
2

1

than to cast Ms. Wilcher in a cruelly derogatory light. The matter contained in paragraph 19 is

2

immaterial and presents a serious risk of prejudice and confusion of the issues. Accordingly,

3

Paragraph 19 is stricken.

4

II. Conclusion

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Wilcher’s Motion to Strike Paragraph 19 of

6

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (#17) is GRANTED.

7

DATED this 21st day of February 2013.

8
9
10
11

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3