Free Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Value Options, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant Value Options ("Defendant") seeks a Court Order striking Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Thomas Crumbley ("Crumbley") and Karen Marshall ("Marshall"), and striking these Defendants' names from the Complaint. Defendant further requests that the Court issue an Order quashing service of process upon Crumbley and Marshall. [Dkt. 88]. The Motion is fully briefed. [Dkts. 89, 90]. On August 30, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File An Amended Complaint. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion on September 24, 2004. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ("Complaint") added Crumbley and Marshall as Defendants in the case. The Complaint charged Crumbley and Marshall with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs. Defendant argues that the claims against Crumbley and Marshall should be stricken pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the claims are "redundant" and "scandalous." Defendant argues that the claims against Crumbley and Marshall puts a "black mark" on these Defendants' professional licenses. Defendant categorizes Plaintiff's claims against Crumbley and Marshall as "frivolous."
Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE Document 128 Filed 08/15/2005 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shannon Michael Clark, Plaintiff, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV 03-1344-PHX-EHC ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Rule 12(f) provides: (f) Motion to Strike. Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party within 20 days after the service of the pleading upon the party or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. FED.R.CIV.P. 12(f) (second emphasis added). "A 'redundant' matter consists of allegations that constitute a needless repetition of other averments or which are foreign to the issue to be [decided]." Wilkerson v. Butler, 2005 WL 1560481, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citations omitted). "Allegations may be stricken as scandalous if the matter bears no possible relation to the controversy or may cause the objecting party prejudice." Id. (citations omitted). Rule 12(f) Motions are generally disfavored. See Wailua Associates v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 183 F.R.D. 550, 553 (D.Hawai'i 1998) ("Motions to strike allegedly redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter are not favored."); see also California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2002) ("courts are very reluctant to determine disputed or substantial issues of law on a motion to strike; these questions are properly viewed as determinable only after discovery and a hearing on the merits.") (internal citations omitted); Rosales v. Citibank, Federal Sav. Bank, 133 F.Supp.2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2001) ("Motions to strike are generally not granted unless it is clear that the matter sought to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.") (citation omitted). The Court will deny Defendants' Motion to Strike. Plaintiff's claims against Crumbley and Marshall are not redundant; they do not constitute a needless repetition of other averments, nor are they foreign to the issue to be decided. Plaintiff is claiming that Crumbley and Marshall individually acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs. The fact that Plaintiff is alleging the same cause of action arising from the set of facts against Defendant does not warrant striking the claims against Crumbley and Marshall.

-2Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE Document 128 Filed 08/15/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff's claims against Crumbley and Marshall are not scandalous; they have an obvious relationship to the controversy and do not prejudice Defendant, who is the objecting party. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike Claims Against and Quashing Service of Process on Defendants Crumbley and Marshall is DENIED. [Dkt. 88]. DATED this 15th day of August, 2005.

-3Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE Document 128 Filed 08/15/2005 Page 3 of 3