Motion to Strike in North Dakota

Background

“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.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“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.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“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.)

The Court’s Decisions

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.)