THE HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION AND INSURANCE COMPANY et al v. INTERNATIONAL GLASS PRODUCTS, LLC et al

Filing 243

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 217 defendant International Glass Products, LLC's Motion to Strike without prejudice to the court's consideration of defendant's substantive arguments as to the propriety of plaintiffs' Rule 56 motion in connection with the disposition of the parties' pending cross-motions for summary judgment. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 3/24/16. (mwm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE HARTFORD STEAM BOILER
INSPECTION AND INSURANCE
COMPANY and HARTFORD
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL GLASS
PRODUCTS, LLC, and FRANCISCO
A. FERNANDEZ,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:08cv1564
Electronic Filing

MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2016, upon due consideration of defendant
International Glass Products, LLC’s Motion to Strike Motion for Summary Judgment and
Memorandum of Law Filed by Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company and
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, IT IS ORDERED that [217] the motion be, and the same
hereby is, DENIED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the court, in its discretion, to “strike from a
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are generally disfavored,
United States v. 0.28 Acre of Land, More or Less, Situate in Washington Cty., Penn., No.
09CV0583, 2009 WL 4408194, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2009) (citation omitted), and should be
granted “only when ‘the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause
prejudice to one of the parties, or if the allegations confuse the issues.’” Allied Dental Grp., Ltd.
1

v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. CIV.A. 12-1637, 2013 WL 5436948, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Sept.
27, 2013) (quoting Medevac MidAtlantic v. Keystone Mercy Health Plan, 817 F. Supp. 2d 515,
520 (E.D. Pa. 2011)). “Indeed, striking a pleading is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when
required for the purposes of justice and should be used sparingly.” Spiess v. Pocono Mountain
Reg'l Police Dep't, No. 3:10CV287, 2011 WL 662977, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2011) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
“[C]onsistent with this sparing approach urged by the courts with respect to motions to
strike, those ‘pleadings’ that may be subject to a motion to strike are construed narrowly.”
Rynone Mfg. Corp. v. Sulzbach, No. 13-CV-671, 2014 WL 4411073, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 5,
2014). Because “briefs are, by their nature, argumentative and sometimes contentious filings, it
is generally held that a brief-as opposed to other forms of pleadings-typically will not be
considered a “pleading” which is properly the subject of a motion to strike.” Id. (citing authority
and denying defendant’s request to strike the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment
and related pleadings).
Here, defendant International Glass Products, LLC moves to strike the plaintiffs’ pending
motion for summary judgment and related pleadings on the grounds that the motion fails to
conform to the requirements of Rule 56 by inappropriately treating both named plaintiffs as a
single entity. Because defendant has failed to demonstrate that relief under Rule 12(f) is
warranted, the motion to strike has been denied. Nevertheless, the court will consider
defendant’s substantive arguments as to the propriety of plaintiffs’ Rule 56 motion in connection
with its disposition of the parties’ pending cross-motions for summary judgment.
s/David Stewart Cercone
David Stewart Cercone
United States District Judge
2

cc:

Richard W. DiBella, Esquire
Paul K. Geer, Esquire
Andrew M. Roman, Esquire
Mark A. May, Esquire
John Halley, Esquire
(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)

3