ADAMS POINTE I, L.P. et al v. TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP. et al

Filing 214

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying re #205 MOTION to Strike Certain Allegations of Plaintiffs' First #186 Amended Complaint filed by TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRU-FLEX, LLC and #211 MOTION to Strike Improper Allegations from #186 Amended Complaint filed by PRO-FLEX LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 10/27/2017. (ajt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PITTSBURGH
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ADAMS POINTE I, L.P., ADAMS POINTE
II, L.P., BAYBERRY NORTH
ASSOCIATES L.P., AND; BETTERS
REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, L.P.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED; JBCO,
ADAMS POINTE III, L.P., ADAMS
POINTE NORTH CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, L.P., ADAMS POINTE
MASTER ASSOCIATION, L.P.,
COULTER & GRAHAM, LLP., MICHAEL
AND KATHLEEN BICHLER, JOHN
EVANS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRUFLEX, LLC, AND; AND PRO-FLEX LLC,
Defendants,

2:16-CV-00750-CRE

MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of October, 2017, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants
Tru-Flex Metal Hose Corp., and Tru-Flex, LLC’s Motion to Strike Certain Allegations of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 205] and Defendant Pro-Flex, LLC’s Motion to
Strike Improper Allegations from Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 211] are
DENIED as the Defendants have not shown that the allegations that are the subject matter of the
present motion are prejudicial to Defendants or that Defendants would suffer prejudice if the
allegations are not stricken. See Lifetouch National School Studios Inc. v. Roles, 2016 WL
3440620, at *2 (W.D.Pa. 2016); DiPietro v. Jefferson Bank, 1993 WL 101356, at *1 (E.D.Pa.
1993) (“Motions to strike are generally not favored by the courts.”). To the extent that Defendants

1

seek to strike certain allegations pertaining to subsequent remedial measures and hearsay from
Plaintiffs’ amended complaint under Federal Rules of Evidence 407 and 802, the court will
consider the issue of admissibility of this information at a later and more appropriate stage of the
litigation.

BY THE COURT:

s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge

2