Wood et al v. Nautilus Insurance Company

Filing 114

ORDERED that Nautilus's motion to strike (ECF No. 77 ) and motion to dismiss (ECF No. 80 ) are denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

ROBERT “SONNY” WOOD, an individual;
ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,

9
10
11

Case No. 2:17-cv-02393-MMD-CWH
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
NAUTILUS INSURANCE GROUP, a
Delaware limited liability company, et al.,

12

Defendant.

13
14

This is a dispute about insurance coverage. Before the Court are Defendant

15

Nautilus Insurance Company’s (“Nautilus”) motion to strike1 (ECF Nos. 77) and motion to

16

dismiss (ECF No. 80) Plaintiffs Robert “Sonny” Wood and Access Medical, LLC’s

17

(together, “Insureds”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (ECF No. 73). The Court has

18

reviewed the Insureds’ responses (ECF Nos. 86, 87) as well as Nautilus’s replies (ECF

19

Nos. 92, 93). For the following reasons, the Court denies Nautilus’s motions.

20

Nautilus moves to strike numerous allegations supporting the Insureds’ claims

21

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (ECF No. 78 at 11.) Rule 12(f) allows the

22

Court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,

23

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” “Motions to strike are generally regarded with

24

disfavor.” Roadhouse v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 290 F.R.D. 535, 543 (D. Nev.

25

2013) (quoting Mag Instrument, Inc. v. JS Prods., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1106 (C.D.

26
27
28

1The

Court has reviewed the filings related to the motion to strike: ECF No. 78
(memorandum), ECF No. 79 (request for judicial notice), and ECF No. 81 (supporting
declaration).

1

Cal. 2008)). The purpose of a motion to strike is to avoid “the expenditure of time and

2

money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior

3

to trial.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other

4

grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (quoting Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880,

5

885 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Given their disfavored status, courts often require a showing of

6

prejudice by the moving party before granting the requested relief.” Roadhouse, 290

7

F.R.D. at 543 (quoting Mag Instrument, 595 F. Supp. 2d at 1106)). “Whether to grant a

8

motion to strike lies within the sound discretion of the district court.” Id.

9

Nautilus primarily requests that the Court strike certain allegations because they

10

are barred by issue preclusion.2 (ECF No. 78 at 11-14.) But the Court already has ruled

11

on issue preclusion in this case twice, most recently finding that issue preclusion did not

12

bar the claims raised by the Insureds at the time.3 (See ECF No. 36; ECF No. 72 at 4-7.)

13

Moreover, Nautilus’s motion amounts to “an attempt to have certain portions of [the

14

Insureds’] complaint dismissed or to obtain summary judgment against [the Insureds] as

15

to those portions of the suit.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974 (9th

16

Cir. 2010). Not only does Nautilus argue that certain allegations are precluded as a matter

17

of law, Nautilus’s motion to dismiss hinges on the success of its motion to strike. (See ECF

18

No. 80 at 9-10 (“Should the Court grant Nautilus’s Motion to Strike, the remaining

19

allegations in the SAC . . . . are not enough to state claims against Nautilus for breach of

20

contract, breach of the implied covenant, or unfair claims practices.”).) Thus, Nautilus’s

21

arguments are “better suited for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a Rule 56 motion, not a Rule

22

12(f) motion.” Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 974. Given that “Rule 12(f) is neither an authorized

23

nor a proper way to procure the dismissal of all or a part of a complaint,” Yamamoto v.

24

///

25
26
27
28

2Nautilus

also argues that the Court should strike the Insureds’ allegations that
Nautilus violated NRS § 686A.310(1)(b) and (d) based on the Court’s prior order
dismissing those claims without leave to amend (ECF No. 78 at 14), but this argument—
like its primary argument—is better suited to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a Rule 56 motion.
3Two

of those claims—breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant—
remain in the SAC. (ECF No. 73 at 18, 21.)
2

1

Omiya, 564 F.2d 1319, 1327 (9th Cir. 1977) (internal quotation marks omitted), the Court

2

denies Nautilus’s motion to strike. The Court also denies Nautilus’s motion to dismiss

3

because it is predicated on the success of the motion to strike.

4

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases

5

not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines

6

that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motions before

7

the Court.

8
9
10

It is therefore ordered that Nautilus’s motion to strike (ECF No. 77) and motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 80) are denied.
DATED THIS 23rd day of April 2019.

11
12
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3