Benchmark Construction v. Scheiner Commercial Group et al
Filing
115
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order-finding as moot 38 Motion to Strike ; granting 23 Motion to Strike and orders Plaintiff to refile the Amended Complaint without the prolix narrative styled as an Introduction within the time allotted under Rule 12. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 3/26/13. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
BENCHMARK CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a
Utah limited liability company,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:12-cv-00762
SCHEINER COMMERCIAL GROUP, INC.,
a Colorado corporation, JOE SCHEINER, an
individual, JAY SCHEINER, an individual,
Judge Clark Waddoups
Defendants.
The court has considered the substance of Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint filed October 24, 2012, or in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite
Statement [Dkt. No. 38] purportedly filed under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
From a procedural perspective, Rule 8 outlines the requirements that govern the format of
pleadings under the Federal Rules (though it specifically states that “[n]o technical form is
required,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1)) but does not itself provide for the filing of a motion to police
its compliance. Such a motion must be filed under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, either pursuant to Rule 12(e) or Rule 12(f)(2). Accordingly, the court now disposes of
this motion under the framework of Rule 12(f)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Because the court treats Defendants’ purported Rule 8 motion to strike portions of the
Amended Complaint under Rule 12, as it must where Defendants are filing their motion in
response to the Complaint, it finds as an initial matter that Plaintiff properly filed the Amended
1
Complaint under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as it has a right to do
in response to a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Accordingly, the court
terminates Defendants’ earlier Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 23] as moot and finds Defendants’
arguments that Plaintiff improperly filed its Amended Complaint to be without merit. The
Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 25] was properly filed.
However, the court accepts Defendants’ arguments that the Amended Complaint in some
respects falls short of the requirements of Rule 8, which requires that each allegation “must be
simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Specifically, the court strikes the
“Introduction” section of narrative inserted after paragraph 12 of the Complaint. The
Defendants’ argument is well-taken that this unnumbered section of narrative, more similar in
nature to an opening argument at trial than a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), is prolix and unnecessarily dramatic at
this stage of the lawsuit. See Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007).
The court is conscious, however, of Plaintiff’s need to comply with the heightened
pleading standard required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to its
fraudulent inducement claim as well as with the pleading standards clarified by Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Accordingly, aside from the modifications referred to above, the court declines to interject itself
further into an assessment of the pleadings at this stage.
Plaintiff must now comply with the timing provisions of Rule 12 in filing its Amended
Complaint striking the “Introduction” section.
2
CONCLUSION
The court deems Defendants’ Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 23] as filed under Rule 12(f).
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 25] was therefore properly filed pursuant to Rule
15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result, the court hereby terminates
Defendants’ Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 23] as MOOT.
The court also deems Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed
October 24, 2012, or in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement [Dkt. No. 38] as
filed under Rule 12(f). The court GRANTS the motion [Dkt. No. 38] and orders Plaintiff to refile
the Amended Complaint without the prolix narrative styled as an “Introduction” within the time
allotted under Rule 12.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
______________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Court Judge
3
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?