Miles v. Hartley

Background

The court considered Gordon Miles’s Motion to Strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Miles sought to strike parts of the defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and related filings, arguing that they were untimely and contained perjurious material.

Miles identified two alleged problems. First, the cover letter accompanying physical courtesy copies was addressed to “the Honorable Joan N. Ericksen,” referred to an unrelated case, and began with “Dear Judge Thorson.” Second, Miles said that although the motion and related materials were dated December 4, 2019, the package he received had a December 9, 2019 postmark.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike material from a pleading when it is an insufficient defense or is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The court explained that motions to strike are rarely granted and generally viewed with disfavor.

The court concluded that the cover-letter error was not impertinent or scandalous and did not amount to perjury. The court also noted that the cover letter was not an official pleading. The error therefore did not justify striking the motion or related materials.

As to the alleged late mailing, the court noted that Miles did not provide a copy of the envelope to support his claim. The defendants represented that they mailed the courtesy copies on December 4, 2019, the day they filed the motion. The court said it could not evaluate Miles’s claim on that record. It further stated that, even if the package had been postmarked late, Miles had not shown prejudice: no hearing or briefing schedule had been set for the motion, and Miles filed his response brief on time.

Ruling

The court held that Miles had not shown why the defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings should be stricken. Judge Katherine Menendez ordered that Miles’s Motion to Strike was DENIED. The order did not rule on the separate Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.