A motion to strike is a legal maneuver that enables a party in civil litigation to request the removal of certain parts of the opposing party's pleadings, such as irrelevant or immaterial information, redundant or scandalous material, or legally insufficient claims or defenses. By using a motion to strike, a party can streamline the case by eliminating unnecessary or improper contentions, thus focusing on the core issues in dispute. (Motion to Strike, Black's Law Dictionary, 11th ed. 2019, available at Westlaw.)
“Without establishing any prejudice as the basis for his motion to strike, [reviewing courts] cannot say that [a] trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion.” (Trujillo v. TK Martial Arts Academy, LLC (2015) 474 S.W.3d 519…)
“Rule 12(g), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading . . . the court may order stricken from a pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” (See Birth Hope Adoption Agency, Inc. v. Doe (1997) 190 Ariz. 285…)
“The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437(a).) A notice of motion to strike a portion of the pleading must quote…”
“C.R.C.P. 12(f) provides that the court may order any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter stricken from any pleading, motion, or other paper.” (See Rabin v. Freirich (In re Rabin) (2018) 475 P.3d 600…)
“[A]fter a court has granted a motion to strike, [a party] may either amend his pleading [pursuant to Practice Book § 10-44] or, on the rendering of judgment, file an appeal.... The choices are mutually exclusive [as the] filing of an amended pleading operates as a waiver of the right to...”
“The rules of the Superior Court and other trial courts give trial judges the discretion to strike scandalous allegations that bear no relevance to the claim being asserted and are made solely to put improper pressure on the defendant.” (See Blue Hen Mech., Inc. v. Christian Bros. Risk Pooling Trust (2015) 117 A.3d 549…)
A trial judge has a broad range of sanctions at his disposal to enforce the parties' compliance with court orders. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b), 1.420(b). Among the alternatives is the authority to strike a party's pleadings or order dismissal of the action…
“[H]aving one test as the starting point for reviewing OCGA § 9-11-12 (f) motions to strike is appropriate. Although the rule uses four different adjectives—redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous—it is well-accepted that ‘[t]hese four terms used were not intended to be mutually exclusive; there is a certain amount of overlapping between them, particularly the first three.’” (Chappuis v. Ortho Sport & Spine Physicians Savannah, LLC. (2019) 305 Ga. 401…)
“The denial of a motion to strike or dismiss, of itself, is not a final and appealable order within the purview of the Civil Practice Act or Supreme Court Rules 307 and 308. It is a mere interlocutory order, which does not finally dispose of the proceeding so as to give this court jurisdiction on appeal.” (George F. Mueller Sons, Inc. v. Daly (1970) 124 Ill. App. 2d 265…)
“Indiana Trial Rule 12(F) permits a trial court to order stricken from any pleading any insufficient claim or defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." (See Raylu Enters. v. City of Noblesville (2023) 205 N.E.3d 260 …)
Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a plaintiff to move to strike “any insufficient defense. A motion to strike a defense as insufficient is the counterpart of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6)…”
Mich. Ct. R. 2.115(A) governs motions to correct or clarify pleadings. Additionally, Mich. Ct. R. 2.115(B) governs motions to strike.
“Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.06 allows the district court to strike from any pleading any matter that it finds to be redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous." (See Igbanugo v. Cangemi, No. A10-2002, at *8 (Minn. Ct. App. June 27, 2011).)
“Only the substantive facts necessary to constitute a cause of action (or defense) shall be stated in a pleading.” (See Webster v. Sterling Finance Co. (1943) 351 Mo. 754…)
“Rule 12(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, allows the court to strike from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” (See Reese v. City of Charlotte (2009) 196 N.C. App. 557 …)
“The motion to strike, under the terms of Rule 12(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, is the remedy for eliminating redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter in the pleading.” (See Dangerfield v. Markel (1974) 222 N.W.2d 373…)
New Jersey Court Rule R. 4:6-5 provides that “the court may order stricken from any pleading any defense insufficient at law. Thus, a court should strike a defense when it is without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” (See Barriga v. Advanced Surgery Ctr. LLC, CIVIL ACTION No. BER-L-1326-17, at *12 (Law Div. Mar. 14, 2018).)
“The New Mexico rule is an adaptation of federal rule 12. See F.R.Civ.P. 12(f), 28 U.S.C.A. Courts which have applied federal rule 12(f) have stated that motions to strike are not favored, and are infrequently granted.” (Roberts v. Sparks (1982) 99 N.M. 152…)
The purpose of a motion to strike is “to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” (Mehta v. Nutribullet, LLC, 2:20-cv-01550-APG-DJA, at *1 [D. Nev. Dec. 15, 2021] citing Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co. (2010) 618 F.3d 970…)
A party may move to strike any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily filed with the court. (Civ. Pract. Law & Rules, § 3024; Irving v. Four Seasons Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., 121 A.D.3d 1046, 1047 [2nd Dept. 2014].)
Civ.R. 8(E)(1) provides that “each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.” (Scaccia v. Lemmie, 2007 Ohio 1055, 7 [Ohio Ct. App. 2007] [finding that “given that the vast majority of the complaint appears superfluous and irrelevant, [the Court of Appeals] does not fault the trial court for striking it in it[s] entirety, as opposed to taking the trouble to cull out the few portions that were salvageable.”].)
“If redundant or irrelevant matter be inserted in any pleadings, it may be stricken out on the motion of the party prejudiced thereby.” (See Berry et al. v. Geiser Man. Co. (1905) 15 Okla. 364…)
It is well settled that “when a party files a motion to strike after it has filed responsive pleadings, it is within the trial court's discretion to grant or deny that motion.” (See Pereira v. Thompson (2009) 230 Or. App. 640…)
“The Official Note to Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(1) clarifies that an order granting a motion to strike or open a judgment is not appealable as would be an order denying a motion to strike or open a judgment. (Dig. Commc'ns Warehouse, supra, 223 A.3d at 284…)
“A motion to strike should be precise, stating specifically the portions of the affidavit to which objection is being made, and the grounds therefor.” (See Perma Research Dev. Co. v. Singer Co. (1969) 410 F.2d 572…)
A motion to strike the whole pleadings can have the same effect as a general demurrer. (Gallien v. Was. Mut. H (2006) 209 S.W.3d 856, 862 n.7 citing Susanoil, Inc. v. Continental Oil Co. (1973) 516 S.W.2d 260, 264.) To the extent that [a] motion to strike accomplishes the same purpose as that of a general demurrer, the courts note that the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure expressly…
“Under sub. sec. 1041(a), a SLAPP suit is an action arising from defendant's exercise, in connection with a public issue, of the right to freedom of speech or to petition the government for redress of grievances under the United States or Vermont Constitution." (See 12 V.S.A. sub. sec. 1041(a); Felis v. Downs Rachlin Martin, PLLC (2015) 129 …)
“CR 12(f) allows a trial court to strike from any pleading any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” (See Brandmeier v. Miller, No. 80111-2-I, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2020).)
It is well settled that “a motion to strike out in its entirety a separate defense is, in its legal effect, a demurrer.” (See Lounsbury v. Eberlein (1957) 2 Wis. 2d 112…)
It is well settled that “a motion to strike out in its entirety a separate defense is, in its legal effect, a demurrer.” (See Lounsbury v. Eberlein (1957) 2 Wis. 2d 112…)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
