Alvion Properties, Inc. et al v. Weber et al

Filing 656

ORDER: For this reason, defendants' motion to strike pleadings from the first amended complaint 583 is DENIED without prejudice to defendants' right to object to the admissibility of particular evidence during the course of the trial. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 11/6/12. (xc:Pro se party by email notification)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ALVION PROPERTIES, INC., SHIRLEY)
K. MEDLEY, and HAROLD M.
)
REYNOLDS,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BERND H. WEBER, RAYMONDE WEBER, )
CLAUDE J. CHAUVEAU, AMERICAN
)
GULF FINANCE CORP., ALVION
)
PARTNERS, LLC, AGF REALTY
)
SOLUTIONS, INC., TIMEDATA
)
HOLDINGS, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
BERND H. WEBER, CLAUDE J.
)
CHAUVEAU,
)
)
Counter-Claimants,
)
)
Harold M. Reynolds, Shirley K. )
Medley, Donald M. Medley,
)
Farmers State Bank Of Alto Pass,)
Brad Henshaw, Allain de la
)
Motte, Elizabeth Melland,
)
Robert M. West, Melland Group, )
LLC,
)
Counter-Defendants.
)

NO. 3:08-0866
Judge Sharp/Bryant
Jury Demand

O R D E R
Defendants Bernd H. Weber and Claude J. Chauveau have
filed

their

motion

to

strike

certain

allegedly

impertinent,

scandalous and improperly joined sections of the first amended
complaint1 (Docket Entry No. 583).

1

By this motion, defendants seek

On July 26, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to
file a second amended complaint (Docket Entry No. 608). The
amendments in this pleading did not affect the paragraphs that
are the subject of this motion.

an order striking certain paragraphs of the first amended complaint
which, for the most part, consist of allegations of acts or
omissions by these defendants involving Melland Group, LLC, and its
principals,

third-party

defendants

West

and

de

la

Motte.2

Plaintiffs have not responded to this motion.
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that a court may strike from a pleading an insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.

Despite

this

rule,

however,

motions

to

strike

are

generally disfavored and will be denied unless the allegations have
no possible relation or logical connection to the subject matter of
the controversy and may cause some form of significant prejudice to
one or more of the parties to the action.

Mayes v. EPA, 2006 WL

2709237, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 20, 2006) (citing 5C Charles A.
Wright & Arthur R. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure § 1382 (3d
ed. 2004)). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “the
action of striking a pleading should be sparingly used by the
courts.

It is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when

required for the purposes of justice.”

Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Corp. v. United States, 201 F.2d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 1953).
As grounds for their motion, defendants argue that the

2

Defendants seek to have the following paragraphs of the
first amended complaint stricken: 30-33, 37, 39-42, 44-45, 47-51,
53-57, 60, 62, 65 and a portion of paragraph 71 (Docket Entry No.
584-1).
2

allegations in the first amended complaint that they seek to have
stricken amount to claims of the Melland Group, LLC, and not the
plaintiffs, that these claims have not been assigned to plaintiffs,
and that these claims are time-barred (Docket Entry No. 584).
The undersigned Magistrate Judge notes that defendants
Weber and Chauveau have themselves asserted a third-party claim
against the Melland Group, LLC and its principals, Robert West and
Allain de la Motte (Docket Entry No. 322).

The allegations in

defendants’

some

pleading

appear

to

relate

to

of

the

same

transactions that are described in the paragraphs of the first
amended complaint that defendants by their present motion seek to
have stricken. Given the general disfavor with which courts regard
motions to strike, and the claims made by defendants Weber and
Chauveau in their third-party complaint, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge finds that striking particular allegations from the pleadings
would be an inappropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion.
For this reason, defendants’ motion to strike pleadings
from the first amended complaint (Docket Entry No. 583) is DENIED
without

prejudice

to

defendants’

right

to

object

to

the

admissibility of particular evidence during the course of the
trial.
It is so

ORDERED.
s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge
3