Motion to Strike in Oregon

Background

“A court may strike any insufficient defense or any sham, frivolous, irrelevant, or redundant matter inserted in a pleading.” (See Alfieri v. Solomon (2015) 358 Or. 383, 391.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“If a motion to strike an entire pleading or to dismiss is allowed, the court retains discretion to allow or not allow an amended pleading.” (See Alfieri v. Solomon (2015) 358 Or. 383, 411.)

“However, once the court has granted a motion to dismiss or strike an entire pleading, or a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 21 is otherwise allowed, a plaintiff may no longer amend as a matter of course, but must seek leave of the court to do so.” (See id.)

“If leave is sought, the court, applying the same principles that guide the amendment of pleadings after a responsive pleading has been served, may decide whether to allow it.” (See id.)

“In such a case, leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A motion to strike is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” (See Mason v. Householder (1982) 58 Or. App. 192, 197.)

“We generally review orders to strike for abuse of discretion.” (See Alfieri v. Solomon (2015) 358 Or. 383, 391.)

“However, where a court's exercise of discretion turns on a legal question, such as the meaning of a statute, we review that determination as a matter of law.” (See id.)

“We will not disturb the trial court's decision unless it appears that the discretion was abused to the prejudice of one of the parties.” (See Mason v. Householder (1982) 58 Or. App. 192, 197.)

The Court’s Decisions

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, 659.)

“It is equally well established that a motion to strike improper testimony must be made as soon as the ground for such a motion is disclosed.” (See McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical (1974) 270 Or. 375, 421.)