Kraiem v. JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC

Background

The court reviewed Neffisa Kraiem’s proposed Second Amended Complaint, filed January 14, 2022, the defendants’ redlined objections, and letters from the parties. The First Amended Complaint was still the operative complaint. Because the disputed paragraphs already appeared in that complaint, the court treated the defendants’ objections as a request to strike allegations.

Rule and analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows a court to strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material from a pleading. The court explained that such requests must identify the challenged material and the reasons for striking it, and that courts generally do not alter pleadings without a strong reason. At this early stage, the court found that the disputed paragraphs could provide relevant context and a better understanding of the claims. It therefore declined to strike them.

The court also addressed the proposed amendments. It stated that the amendments were largely cosmetic and did not conflict with prior orders. The proposed complaint asserted no claims against previously dismissed defendants JTIL, Hill, Chmielewski, and Cunningham. References to “All Defendants” therefore referred only to the remaining defendants identified by the court as JTIS, Cohen, and Mazzullo. The court reiterated that the previously dismissed defendants were no longer parties and that the proposed amendments could not assert actionable conduct or claims against them.

Disposition

The court denied the request to strike the disputed allegations. It ordered Kraiem to electronically file a clean version of the proposed Second Amended Complaint by Tuesday, January 25, 2022. Upon filing, that document would become the Second Amended Complaint and the operative complaint. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.’s order addressed the pleadings and did not resolve the merits of the underlying claims.