Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Page v. Kellermeyer Bergensons Services LLC

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

April 12, 2017

GERALD and MARYANNA PAGE, Plaintiff,
v.
KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendant.

          CONNER CHIEF JUDGE

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          MARTIN C. CARLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         THE BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE IS AS FOLLOWS

         This personal injury case began as a pro se lawsuit. However, following the filing of this initial pro se complaint, the plaintiffs retained counsel, who filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 9.) That amended complaint is now the operative pleading in this lawsuit.

         On March 17, 2017, the defendant moved to strike certain allegations from this amended complaint. (Doc. 13.) Specifically, the defendant moved to strike paragraph 18 of the amended complaint, which appears to be a typographical error since it apparently refers to a different lawsuit. Further, the defendant sought to strike the specified sums of unliquidated damages, $1, 500, 000 set forth in the amended complaint. Finally, the defendant moved to strike all references to “reckless” conduct from the amended complaint.

         The plaintiffs have not responded to this motion, and the time for filing a response has now passed. Therefore, in the absence of any response from the plaintiffs, the motion will be deemed ripe for resolution.

         For the reasons set forth below, the motion to strike will be GRANTED, in part, in that paragraph 18 of the amended complaint, and the specified sums of unliquidated damages will be STRICKEN from the amended complaint.

         DISCUSSION

         Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to strike pleadings and provides, in part, that:

(f) Motion to Strike. The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.

Fed. R.Civ. P. 12(f).

         While rulings on motions to strike rest in the sound discretion of the court, Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 657 F.Supp. 1134, 1146 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), that discretion is guided by certain basic principles. Because striking a pleading is viewed as a drastic remedy, such motions are “generally disfavored.” Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1057 (5th Cir. 1982). As one court has aptly observed: “striking a party's pleadings is an extreme measure, and, as a result, . . . ‘[m]otions to strike under Fed .R.Civ.P. 12(f) are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.' Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221, 229 (8th Cir.1977) (citing 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure. Civil § 1380 at 783 (1969)). See also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gibson, 829 F.Supp. 1103, 1106 (W.D.Mo.1993); 2 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 12.37[1] (3d ed. 2000).” Stanbury Law Firm v. I.R.S., 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000). In practice, courts should exercise this discretion and strike pleadings only when those pleadings are both “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” and prejudicial to the opposing party. Ruby v. Davis Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818, 820 (7th Cir. 2001).

         In this case, we note at the outset that, under the Local Rules of this Court the plaintiffs should be deemed to not oppose this motion, since the plaintiffs have failed to timely oppose the motion. Local Rule 7.6 of the Rules of this Court imposes an affirmative duty on the plaintiffs to respond to motions and provides that:

Any party opposing any motion, other than a motion for summary judgment, shall file a brief in opposition within fourteen (14) days after service of the movant's brief, or, if a brief in support of the motion is not required under these rules, within seven (7) days after service of the motion. Any party who fails to comply with this rule shall be deemed not to oppose such motion. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit the authority of the court to grant any motion before expiration of the prescribed period for filing a brief in opposition. A brief in opposition to a motion for summary judgment and LR 56.1 responsive statement, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.