Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“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, 376,)
“This form of motion was not designed as a method of dismissing all or part of a complaint or counterclaim.” (See id.)
“Courts have the authority to consider a motion to strike at any time.” (See Buchholz v. Buchholz (2022) N.D. 203, 9.)
However, “striking a party's pleadings is an extreme measure, and such motions are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.” (See Collection Center, Inc. v. Bydal (2011) 795 N.W.2d 667, 676.)
“We review a district court's decision to strike under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(f) for an abuse of discretion.” (See Buchholz v. Buchholz (2022) N.D. 203, 9.)
“A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination." (See id.)
It is well settled that “some courts, when faced with affidavits on a Rule 12(f) motion to strike a defense have treated the motion to strike as one for partial summary judgment.” (See Dangerfield v. Markel (1974) 222 N.W.2d 373, 377 n.1.)
It is also well settled that “motions to strike generally are not favored.” (See Collection Center, Inc. v. Bydal (2011) 795 N.W.2d 667, 676.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.