Fender v. Biltmore Forest Country Club, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER granting Defendant's 2 Motion to Strike, and the Court Strikes Proposed Amended Complaint [#5-1]; Order granting Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Court restricts access to docs [#1-1] & [#5-1] to parties. Clerk to strike original complaint [1-1] once Pltf files amended complaint. Pltf shall have through May 11, 2018, to file her amended complaint. Court directs Pltf to not attach her previously filed exhibits to amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 04/27/2018. (ni)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:18 cv 43
SHEILA FENDER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BILTMORE FOREST COUNTRY
)
CLUB, INC., and DOES 1 through 14,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike [# 2] and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File an Amended Complaint [# 5].
Background. On February 20, 2018, Defendant Biltmore Forest Country Club, Inc.
(BFCC) filed a notice or removal and included Plaintiff’s state court complaint and summons.
[# 1]. On that same date, BFCC filed its motion to strike portions of the complaint stating the
portions are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 or otherwise are improper
material. [# 2]. On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Leave to Amend the
Complaint. [# 5]. Plaintiff included a “proposed amended and supplemental complaint”
incorporating her exhibits attached to the original complaint.
Legal Standards. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), the “Court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” either sua
sponte or upon motion. Simaan, Inc. v. BP Products North American, Inc., 395 F. Supp. 2d 271,
278 (M.D.N.C. 2005). In a motion to strike, the burden is high and rests with the movant. Clark v.
Milam, 152 F.R.D. 66, 70 (S.D.W. Va. 1993). Motions to strike are not favored, and any doubts

about whether the motion should be granted should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.
See Lane v. Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co., No. 3:10-CV-401-MOC-DCK, 2011 WL 1343201,
at *2–*3 (W.D.N.C. April 8, 2011).
Immaterial describes matter that “has no essential or important relationship to the claim for
relief or the defenses being pleaded.” 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1382 (3d ed.). Impertinent
describes matter that “do[es] not pertain, and [is] not necessary, to the issues in question.” Id.
Scandalous material includes matter that reflects on a party’s moral character or detracts from the
dignity of the court. See Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2004).
While Federal Rule of Evidence 408 remains relevant, it is not the standard for a motion
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “The issue before the Court on a Rule 12(f) motion is not whether
evidence is admissible, but whether it is immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous.” Lane, 2011 WL
1343201, at *3; see 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1382 (3d ed.).
Discussion. Defendant moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint and strike
completely Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint. [# 2, # 12]. Defendant separates out the
material it wishes the Court to strike into three categories: 1) material that would be inadmissible
at trial under Fed. R. Evidence 408; 3) immaterial content related to Plaintiff’s attached EEOC
charges; and 3) misrepresentation of the contents of exhibit C. [# 3].

On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff moved the Court to grant her leave to amend her complaint
and included a proposed amended complaint. [# 5]. On March 20, 2018, Defendant filed its
response in opposition, renewing its arguments in its motion to strike and asking that the
amended complaint be struck in its entirety. [# 12].
Without question, Plaintiff’s inclusion of other people’s EEOC charges is immaterial
to Plaintiff’s claims for relief. While attached and referenced in the complaint, the EEOC

charges filed by other people are not required for Plaintiff’s relief and, furthermore, they are
not referenced in the causes of action.
A less clear case is Plaintiff’s attachment of a letter she sent to Defendant attempting
to resolve employment issues. Plaintiff also attached Defendant’s response, which is labeled:
FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY.

The Court finds these attachments to be impertinent and

Defendant’s response potentially scandalous. Further, at this stage, the Court does not find it
helpful or necessary to have the attached exhibits.
ORDER
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike [# 2]. The Court STRIKES the
proposed amended complaint [# 5, Ex. 1]. The Court RESTRICTS access, to the parties, for
the following docket entries: # 1, Ex. 1; # 5, Ex. 1.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint [# 5]. Plaintiff
shall have through May 11, 2018, to file her amended complaint. Once Plaintiff files her
amended complaint, the Court directs the Clerk’s Office to STRIKE the original complaint [#
1, Ex. 1].
The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to not attach her previously filed exhibits to the amended
complaint. The Court is not making a determination of whether this material is admissible
under Rule 408 or relevant. Federal pleading standards only require a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009); see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
Signed: April 27, 2018