Panther Partners, Inc. v. Jianpu Technology Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-09848
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Panther Partners v. Jianpu Technology, Judge Gardephe denied Panther’s motion to strike exhibits from a defense declaration.
Panther Partners Inc. and the defendants in the putative class action; the ruling concerned Panther Partners’ motion to strike exhibits from a defense declaration.
What happened
Panther Partners v. Jianpu Technology is a putative class action under the Securities Act of 1933. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and Panther Partners moved to strike Exhibits D, F, H, and J from a defense declaration.
The court explained that Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike certain material from a pleading, but the declaration and its exhibits were not pleadings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied Panther Partners’ motion to strike. He added that the court would not rely on any challenged exhibit when deciding the motion to dismiss if the exhibit was not incorporated into or relied on by the amended complaint and was not subject to judicial notice.
The detailed version
- Panther Partners, Inc. v. Jianpu Technology Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-09848
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 13, 2020
Background
Panther Partners Inc. brought a putative class action alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In support of that motion, defendants submitted a declaration from their counsel, Robert Fumerton, with exhibits. Panther Partners moved to strike Exhibits D, F, H, and J to that declaration.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court to strike an insufficient defense or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from a pleading. Rule 7(a) identifies the documents that qualify as pleadings, including complaints, answers, and certain other specified filings. The court also noted that motions to strike are strongly disfavored.
The court concluded that the Fumerton Declaration and its exhibits were not pleadings. Therefore, Rule 12(f) did not provide a basis for striking them.
Ruling
The court denied Panther Partners’ motion to strike. It stated that, when deciding the motion to dismiss, it would not rely on exhibits cited by Panther Partners to the extent those exhibits were not incorporated into or relied on by the amended complaint and were not subject to judicial notice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion listed as Docket No. 47.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.