GRACIANO V. BLUE SKY LOGISTICS LLC, ET AL.
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 05/16/2018 that Defendants' Motion to Strike 8 is DENIED.(Coyne, Michelle)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CASIMIRO GRACIANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLUE SKY LOGISTICS, LLC, and
MICHAEL WALKER DANIELS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:17CV889
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
OSTEEN, JR., District Judge
Presently before this court is a Motion to Strike filed by
Defendants Blue Sky Logistics, LLC, and Michael Walker Daniels
(“Defendants”). (Doc. 8.) Defendants have filed a corrected
brief in support of their motion, (Doc. 10), Plaintiff Casimiro
Graciano (“Plaintiff”) has responded in opposition, (Doc. 11),
and Defendants have replied, (Doc. 12). This matter is ripe for
resolution, and for the reasons stated herein, this court will
deny Defendants’ Motion to Strike.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are recited in the light most favorable
to Plaintiff. On or about March 1, 2016, Plaintiff was operating
a tractor trailer in Surry County, North Carolina. (Complaint
(“Compl.”) (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 42, 44.) On the same date, Defendant
Michael Walker Daniels (“Defendant Daniels”) was also operating
a tractor trailer in Surry County, North Carolina as an employee
of Defendant Blue Sky Logistics, LLC (“Defendant Blue Sky”).
(Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) The tractor trailer driven by Defendant Daniels
crashed into the tractor trailer driven by Plaintiff, causing
injuries to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 46-47.) Plaintiff alleges that he
properly came to a stop for traffic while Defendant Daniels
failed to reduce his speed, causing the collision. (Id. ¶¶ 4546.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint details necessary requirements that
Defendant Blue Sky met in order to become a licensed motor
carrier. (Id. ¶¶ 8-10.) Plaintiff then extensively outlines
prior instances of Defendant Blue Sky employees being cited for
violations of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. (Id.
¶¶ 11-40.) After describing the circumstances of the collision
at issue, Plaintiff alleges that “[d]ue to the circumstances in
the collision, combined with Defendant Blue Sky Logistics, LLC’s
history of hours-of-service violation, upon information and
belief Defendant Daniels was fatigued and operating in violation
of the hours of service regulation set out in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations.” (Id. ¶ 48.) Plaintiff further
alleges that “[d]ue to Defendant Blue Sky Logistics LLC’s
historic pattern of violations of the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations and state traffic laws, upon information and
– 2 –
belief Blue Sky Logistics had an inadequate driver
qualification, training, and monitoring process.” (Id. ¶ 49.)
Plaintiff asserts, among other things, a cause of action
against Defendants for negligence, asserting that Defendant
Daniels’s actions are imputed to Defendant Blue Sky under the
doctrine of respondeat superior. (Id. ¶¶ 52-62.) Plaintiff
seeks, jointly and severally from the Defendants, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, postjudgment
interest, and court costs. (Id. at 8.) 1
II.
ANALYSIS
A.
Jurisdiction
While jurisdiction has not been challenged in the existing
motions, the existence of jurisdiction is a “question the court
is bound to ask and answer for itself[.]” Mansfield, C. & L.M.
Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884). This case finds
jurisdiction in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas while Defendant Blue Sky is a
Utah corporation with Utah headquarters. Defendant Daniels is a
citizen of Nevada. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
(Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 1-4.)
1
All citations in this Memorandum Opinion and Order to
documents filed with the court refer to the page numbers located
at the bottom right-hand corner of the documents as they appear
on CM/ECF.
– 3 –
B.
Motion to Strike
Defendants, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(f), seek to strike paragraphs eight through forty, fortyeight, and forty-nine of the Complaint. 2 (Defs.’ Br. in Supp. of
their Mot. to Strike (“Defs.’ Br.”) (Doc. 10) at 1.) These
portions of the Complaint largely deal with alleged prior
citations issued to Defendant Blue Sky’s employees. (See Compl.
(Doc. 1) ¶¶ 8-40, 48, 49.) Defendants contend that these
paragraphs “assert inadmissible subject matter which will
unnecessarily broaden the scope and increase the expense of
discovery and this litigation as a whole, distract from the
issues at bar, and unfairly and unjustly smear Defendants.”
(Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 10) at 1.) Specifically, Defendant contend
that the paragraphs at issue are purported “prior bad acts”
which are either unrelated to the conduct at issue, (¶¶ 8-30),
or, if related, are used to suggest that Defendants acted in
conformity therewith during the time at issue, (¶¶ 8-30, 48,
49). (Id. at 2.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides: “The court
may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
2
While Defendants’ motion requests to strike paragraphs
thirty-one through forty, (Defs.’ Mot. to Strike (Doc. 8) at 1),
their supporting brief does not identify a specific basis for
striking these paragraphs. Accordingly, this court declines to
strike paragraphs thirty-one through forty.
– 4 –
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(f). “Such motions can prevent the litigation of
‘unnecessary issues,’ and expedite the proceedings.” Staton v.
N. State Acceptance, LLC, No. 1:13-CV-277, 2013 WL 3910153, at
*2 (M.D.N.C. July 29, 2013) (citations omitted). Courts have
broad discretion in disposing of motions to strike, but “Rule
12(f) motions are generally viewed with disfavor ‘because
striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy and because
it is often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic.’”
Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th
Cir. 2001) (citing 5A A. Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 1380, 647 (2d ed. 1990)); see
also Simaan, Inc. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 395 F. Supp. 2d
271, 278 (M.D.N.C. 2005). “When reviewing a motion to strike, a
court must view the pleading under attack in a light most
favorable to the pleader.” Guessford v. Pa. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins.
Co., 918 F. Supp. 2d 453, 465 (M.D.N.C. 2013) (citing Racick v.
Dominion Law Assocs., 270 F.R.D. 228, 232 (E.D.N.C. 2010)).
1.
Motion to Strike Paragraphs Eight through Thirty
as Irrelevant
With respect to Defendants’ contention that paragraphs
eight through thirty of the Complaint are irrelevant, Plaintiff
contends that the paragraphs in question
set[] out prior actions of Defendant Blue Sky and its
employees in order to support, give context and
– 5 –
background to, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant
Blue Sky specifically for its own negligent actions.
The facts identified in the Motion to Strike support
the third group of claims - that Defendant Blue Sky
was negligent in the performance of its qualification
and training of drivers. Repeated violations further
show that Defendant knew of its inadequate programs
but failed to take action to remedy them. Plaintiff is
required to plead facts in support of each claim and
these facts offer support for the third group of
claims alleged in the Complaint.
(Pl.’s Resp. and Br. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Strike (“Pl.’s
Resp.”) (Doc. 11) at 2.) Defendants, in their reply, contend
that Plaintiff has only asserted a claim against Defendant Blue
Sky by way of respondeat superior liability and has not stated a
claim directly against Defendant Blue Sky. (Defs.’ Reply in
Supp. of their Mot. to Strike (“Defs.’ Reply”) (Doc. 12) at 12.) As such, Defendants contend that the paragraphs in question
are irrelevant as to what is actually alleged in the Complaint.
(Id.)
“[A] motion to strike on the basis of irrelevancy should
only be granted when it is clear that the material in question
can have no possible bearing upon the subject matter of the
litigation and the material may prejudice the other party.”
Simaan, 395 F. Supp. 2d at 278 (citation omitted). In the
present case, Plaintiff has alleged that his injuries were
proximately caused by “Defendants’ negligent and wanton conduct
as complained of herein.” (Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶ 50.) In other
words, Plaintiff has alleged that the conduct of both Defendant
– 6 –
Daniels and Defendant Blue Sky caused his injuries. Liberally
construing the Complaint, this court does not agree with
Defendants that the Complaint exclusively alleges liability
against Defendant Blue Sky on a respondeat superior theory. (See
Defs.’ Reply (Doc. 12) at 2-3.) To the contrary, Plaintiff has
alleged that Defendant Blue Sky “had an inadequate driver
qualification, training, and monitoring process.” (Compl.
(Doc. 1) ¶ 49.) Consequently, this court cannot conclude, at
this stage in the proceedings, that “the material in question
[has] no possible bearing upon the subject matter of the
litigation[,]” Simaan, 395 F. Supp. 2d at 278, and will
accordingly deny Defendants’ Motion to Strike paragraphs eight
through thirty on this basis.
2.
Motion to Strike Paragraphs Eight through Thirty,
Forty-Eight, and Forty-Nine as Inadmissible
With respect to Defendants’ contention that some paragraphs
allege prior bad acts suggestive that Defendants acted in
conformity therewith during the instances at issue in violation
of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1), (Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 10) at
2), Plaintiff first contends that the admissibility of said acts
are outside of the scope of the Motion to Strike, (Pl.’s Resp.
(Doc. 11) at 3 n.1). Nonetheless, Plaintiff further contends
that evidence of said acts will be admissible as:
The plethora of similar prior violations shows that
the collective safety programs instituted by Defendant
– 7 –
Blue Sky generally fell below the standard of care for
the industry. Such prior acts are further admissible
for the purpose of showing knowledge on the part of
Defendant Blue Sky of the industry standard and
knowledge of the inadequacy of its programs pertaining
to qualification, training and supervision of its
over-the-road truck drivers.
(Id.)
At this stage in the proceedings, this court is not
equipped to conclusively resolve competing arguments as to the
admissibility of evidence which would support the allegations in
question. 3 As such, because motions to strike are generally
disfavored, Gilmore, 252 F.3d at 347, and because pleadings at
3
This court notes that a number of courts have recognized
that it is “improper to raise evidentiary questions, such as
those concerning admissibility . . . in Rule 12(f) motions.”
Carney v. Town of Weare, Civil No. 15-cv-291-LM, 2016 WL 320128,
at *3 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2016) (citations omitted); see, e.g.,
Gallagher v. Funeral Source One Supply & Equip. Co., Civil No.
14-cv-115-PB, 2015 WL 773737, at *3 n.2 (D.N.H. Feb. 24, 2015)
(“[T]he majority of courts that have addressed the question
[conclude] that Rule 12(f) does not permit allegations in a
complaint or counterclaim to be stricken solely because they are
based on potentially inadmissible evidence.”); Tolar v.
Cummings, No. 2:13-cv-00132-JEO, 2014 WL 3974671, at *6 (N.D.
Ala. Aug. 11, 2014) (“[C]ourts generally hesitate to strike
allegations in a pleading based on arguments at the threshold of
the action that evidence of pled circumstances would not be
admissible at trial . . . .”); Mobile Conversions, Inc. v.
Allegheny Ford Truck Sales, No. 2:12–cv–1485, 2013 WL 1946183,
at *6–7 (W.D. Pa. May 9, 2013); TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v.
Avago Techs. Ltd., No. CV–09–01531–PHX–JAT, 2010 WL 3034880, at
*4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2010); Steak Umm Co. v. Steak ‘Em Up, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 09–2857, 2009 WL 3540786, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct.
29, 2009); PTR, Inc. v. Forsythe Racing, Inc., No. 08 C 5517,
2009 WL 1606970, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2009); Eppenger–
Pollard v. Lock Joint Tube, Inc., No. 3:05–CV–116RM, 2005 WL
2216900, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 9, 2005).
– 8 –
this juncture are reviewed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, Guessford, 918 F. Supp. 2d at 465, this court will
deny Defendant’s Motion to Strike paragraphs eight through
thirty, forty-eight, and forty-nine on this basis.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendants’ Motion to Strike, (Doc. 8), is DENIED.
This the 16th day of May, 2018.
______________________________________
United States District Judge
– 9 –
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?