LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS INC. v. ROLES
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 13 Motion to Strike, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 6/20/2016. (dlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL
STUDIOS INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELIZABETH ROLES,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-234
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
Introduction
This is an action for injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant’s alleged
breach of her employment agreement as a former employee of Plaintiff. Presently before the
Court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (ECF
No. 13.)The motion has been fully briefed and is now ripe for disposition. (See ECF Nos. 14, 15.)
For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.
II.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), because the
parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
III.
Factual Background
Plaintiff is a photography company. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) Defendant worked as a Territory
Manager for Plaintiff in and around Cambria County, Pennsylvania, beginning on July 21, 1998.
(Id. ¶ 11.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s employment was terminated on July 29, 2014, after an
internal investigation revealed that Defendant had engaged in acts of misconduct, which
constituted breaches of her employment agreement with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 25.) After learning of
the misconduct, in addition to terminating Defendant’s employment, Plaintiff also filed a civil
complaint against Defendant in this Court at Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00182 (the First Civil
Action). (Id. ¶ 28.) That action is currently stayed, pending the disposition of a related criminal
complaint being prosecuted by the Cambria County District Attorney’s Office. (the Criminal
Proceedings). (Id. ¶ 29.) The conduct alleged in the First Civil Action forms the basis of the
Criminal Proceedings.
Plaintiff alleges that after it filed the First Civil Action, it learned that Defendant had
again breached her employment agreement by engaging in photography work that competes
unlawfully with Plaintiff’s business and by soliciting Plaintiff’s employees to leave their
employment with Plaintiff to assist Defendant. (Id. ¶ 30.)
Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant by filing a two-count civil complaint
seeking injunctive relief and damages in this Court on September 15, 2015. (See ECF No. 1.) On
October 7, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to stay this action pending the outcome of the
Criminal Proceedings. (See ECF No. 6.) The Court denied the motion, finding that there is little,
if any, overlap between this action and the Criminal Proceedings, and that Defendant had failed
to demonstrate that she would face hardship or inequity in moving forward with this litigation.
(See ECF No. 12.) Moreover, the Court found that, given the nature of this litigation, Plaintiff
would have been harmed by the delay that a stay would have caused. (Id.)
2
On December 4, 2015, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike portions of the
complaint. (See ECF No. 13.) For the reasons set out below, Defendant’s motion will be denied.
IV.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the court to “strike from a pleading . . . any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Its purpose is “to clean up the
pleadings, streamline litigation, and avoid unnecessary forays into immaterial matters.”
McInerney v. Moyer Lumber and Hardware, Inc., 244 F.Supp.2d 393, 402 (E.D.Pa. 2002). However,
motions to strike are “not favored and usually will be denied unless the allegations have no
possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties.” Zaloga v.
Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co. of America, No. 3:09-cv-635, 2009 WL 4110320, at *8 (M.D.Pa. Nov.
24, 2009). A matter is immaterial if it “has no essential or important relationship to the claim for
relief.” Donnelly v. Commonwealth Fin. Sys., No. 07-cv-1881, 2008 WL 762085, at *4 (M.D.Pa. Mar.
20, 2008). An “impertinent matter consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not
necessary, to the issues in question.” Id. A matter is scandalous if it “improperly casts a
derogatory light on someone, most typically a party to the action.” Id.
V.
Discussion
Defendant moves the Court to strike three paragraphs of the complaint. (ECF No. 13 ¶¶
10-12, 17.) Specifically, Defendant moves the Court to strike paragraphs of the complaint which
include allegations related to Defendant’s alleged theft, which form the basis of the Criminal
Proceedings against Defendant. (Id. ¶ 9.) Defendant argues that these allegations bear no
“relation whatsoever to the subject matter” of this action. (Id. ¶ 13.) Defendant also suggests that
because Plaintiff argued, in its opposition to Defendant’s motion to stay this litigation, that
3
Defendant’s alleged criminal conduct does not overlap with the conduct at issue in this action,
Plaintiff should not be allowed to now argue that these allegations are relevant and should be
included in the complaint. (See id. ¶ 17.)
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s motion to strike should be denied. (ECF
No. 14.) Plaintiff states that the three paragraphs are not immaterial or impertinent, because
“they provide the necessary background information and context” and assist in understanding
Defendant’s actions which form the basis of this lawsuit. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff also notes that the
complaint does not mention the criminal proceeding. (Id.)
Defendant filed a brief in reply on December 24, 2015. (ECF No. 15.) 1 In this reply brief,
Defendant restates her position that Plaintiff has contradicted itself by stating that there is no
overlap between this matter and the Criminal Proceedings on the one hand, while now arguing
that these allegations of Defendant’s conduct while employed by Plaintiff are relevant. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff also states that if the paragraphs at issue remain in the complaint, she “will be
compelled to assert her rights under the Fifth Amendment . . . to protect her interests in [the
Criminal Proceedings].” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff argues that this will materially prejudice her, because
“assertion of her rights under the Fifth Amendment can be used to her detriment in this civil
action.” (Id.)
The Court finds Defendant’s arguments unavailing. Defendant’s suggestion that
Plaintiff has contradicted itself is misplaced. On the motion to stay this litigation, the Court
found that Defendant had not met her burden in showing that she would face hardship or
Defendant filed the reply brief without first filing a motion for leave to file a reply brief, as is required
by Rule II.B. of this Court’s Chambers’ Rules. The Court, in its discretion, has nonetheless taken the
arguments contained in Defendant’s reply brief into consideration in rendering its decision.
1
4
inequity in moving forward with this litigation, in part because the Court agreed with Plaintiff,
and found that “there is little, if any, overlap between the instant action” and the Criminal
Proceedings. (ECF No. 12.) This remains the case—the conduct that forms the basis for the
Criminal Proceedings took place before Plaintiff terminated Defendant’s employment. The
conduct at issue here occurred after Defendant was terminated.
That there is no overlap between the conduct involved in the Criminal Proceedings and
the instant action such that Defendant is not prejudiced by continuing in this litigation,
however, does not necessitate a finding that the paragraphs in the complaint related to the
conduct underlying the Criminal Proceedings are “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Rather, while the Court found that there is little, if any,
overlap between the Criminal Proceedings and the instant dispute, the Court cannot say at this
early stage of this litigation that the three paragraphs at issue are so redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous that they should be stricken from the pleadings. See id.
Defendant’s argument that she will suffer prejudice if required to respond to the
paragraphs of the complaint at issue is also unpersuasive. Defendant argues that she will be
prejudiced by being “compelled” to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in response to the three
paragraphs at issue. This argument is meritless, however, in light of the fact that pleadings,
including the answer, are not read to jurors. See Ratvasky v. Citizens National Bank, 2005 WL
3289343, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2005). Because they are not, there is no concern for prejudice to
Defendant in the event that she chooses to exercise her Fifth Amendment rights. The Court will
consider the issue of admissibility of information related to the criminal proceedings at a later
and more appropriate stage of this litigation. See id.
5
The information contained in the three paragraphs at issue is relevant to the instant
dispute, and answering these paragraphs will not cause prejudice to Defendant. Defendant’s
motion to strike is therefore denied. See id. (denying motion to strike portions of complaint and
finding that there was no concern for prejudice, in part because pleadings are not read to the
jury, and the question of the admissibility of the information at issue would be more
appropriate at a later stage in the proceedings); Abu-Jamal v. Kerestes, 2016 WL 3180178 (M.D. Pa.
June 3, 2016) (denying motion to strike portions of the complaint over the defendants’ objection
that the challenged averments would prejudice them, and noting that although the bearing of
these averments on the case “remain[ed] to be seen,” the court saw “no reason to bar their
inclusion” in the complaint); Crawford v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 1998 WL 288288, at *2 (E.D.
Pa. June 3, 1998) (denying motion to strike portions of complaint that included reference to
defendant school’s employee’s criminal conduct related to the matter before the court, and
noting that motions to strike are generally disfavored and the defendant had not met the
requisite strict standard).
VI.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 13) is denied.
An appropriate order follows.
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL
STUDIOS INC.,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-234
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
v.
ELIZABETH ROLES,
Defendant.
+h
AND NOW, this
20
ORDER
day of June, 2016, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion
to Strike (ECF No. 13), and in accordance with the foregoing memorandum opinion, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion is DENIED
BY THE COURT:
KIM R. GIBSON
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?