United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
L. HOWELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant's Motion to Strike [# 2] and
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
February 20, 2018, Defendant Biltmore Forest Country Club,
Inc. (BFCC) filed a notice or removal and included
Plaintiff's state court complaint and summons. [# 1]. On
that same date, BFCC filed its motion to strike portions of
the complaint stating the portions are inadmissible under
Federal Rule of Evidence 408 or otherwise are improper
material. [# 2]. On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Motion
for Leave to Amend the Complaint. [# 5]. Plaintiff included a
“proposed amended and supplemental complaint”
incorporating her exhibits attached to the original
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), the “Court may strike from a
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” either
sua sponte or upon motion. Simaan, Inc. v. BP Products
North American, Inc., 395 F.Supp.2d 271, 278 (M.D. N.C.
2005). In a motion to strike, the burden is high and rests
with the movant. Clark v. Milam, 152 F.R.D. 66, 70
(S.D. W.Va. 1993). Motions to strike are not favored, and any
doubts about whether the motion should be granted should be
resolved in favor of the non-moving party. See Lane v.
Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co., No.
3:10-CV-401-MOC-DCK, 2011 WL 1343201, at *2-*3 (W.D. N.C.
April 8, 2011).
describes matter that “has no essential or important
relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being
pleaded.” 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1382
(3d ed.). Impertinent describes matter that “do[es] not
pertain, and [is] not necessary, to the issues in
question.” Id. Scandalous material includes
matter that reflects on a party's moral character or
detracts from the dignity of the court. See Cobell v.
Norton, 224 F.R.D. 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2004).
Federal Rule of Evidence 408 remains relevant, it is not the
standard for a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). “The
issue before the Court on a Rule 12(f) motion is not whether
evidence is admissible, but whether it is immaterial,
impertinent, and scandalous.” Lane, 2011 WL
1343201, at *3; see 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ.
§ 1382 (3d ed.).
moves to strike portions of Plaintiff's complaint and
strike completely Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint.
[# 2, # 12]. Defendant separates out the material it wishes
the Court to strike into three categories: 1) material that
would be inadmissible at trial under Fed. R. Evidence 408; 3)
immaterial content related to Plaintiff's attached EEOC
charges; and 3) misrepresentation of the contents of exhibit
C. [# 3].
March 6, 2018, Plaintiff moved the Court to grant her leave
to amend her complaint and included a proposed amended
complaint. [# 5]. On March 20, 2018, Defendant filed its
response in opposition, renewing its arguments in its motion
to strike and asking that the amended complaint be struck in
its entirety. [# 12].
question, Plaintiff's inclusion of other people's
EEOC charges is immaterial to Plaintiff's claims
for relief. While attached and referenced in the complaint,
the EEOC charges filed by other people are not required for
Plaintiffs relief and, furthermore, they are not referenced
in the causes of action.
clear case is Plaintiffs attachment of a letter she sent to
Defendant attempting to resolve employment issues. Plaintiff
also attached Defendant's response, which is labeled: FOR
settlement PURPOSES ONLY. The Court finds these attachments
to be impertinent and Defendant's response potentially