Kaplan Group Investments, LLC v. A.S.A.P. Logistics LTD
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-07326
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kaplan Group Investments v. A.S.A.P. Logistics, Judge Oetken ordered plaintiffs to respond to a request to strike a complaint paragraph.
The order directly affects the plaintiffs, who must respond within 14 days. It also concerns the defendants, paragraph 125 of the complaint, and the Turkish Ambassador’s request to remove that paragraph.
What happened
Kaplan Group Investments, LLC v. A.S.A.P. Logistics Ltd. concerns a request to remove paragraph 125 from the complaint. The paragraph allegedly says that a defendant paid several million dollars to the Turkish Ambassador to the United States.
The Turkish Ambassador asked the court to strike the paragraph, saying the allegation was false, unnecessary to the civil dispute, and harmful. The plaintiffs’ position, as described in the attached correspondence, was that they would not remove it because the parties were disputing the flow of funds in the underlying transactions.
The court did not decide whether to strike paragraph 125. Judge J. Paul Oetken directed the plaintiffs to respond within 14 days and address whether the paragraph should be removed under the rule governing improper material in pleadings.
The detailed version
- Kaplan Group Investments, LLC v. A.S.A.P. Logistics LTD · No. 1:22-cv-07326
- James Oetken
- Sept. 16, 2022
Background
The court received correspondence from the Turkish Ambassador to the United States requesting that paragraph 125 of the complaint be stricken. The paragraph allegedly states that one defendant “made a payment of several million dollars to the Turkish Ambassador to the United States.” The correspondence characterized the allegation as false, said it was not essential to the plaintiffs’ civil claims, and asserted that its continued publication harmed the Embassy and the Ambassador.
The correspondence stated that the Ambassador’s counsel had contacted plaintiffs’ counsel about removing the paragraph. According to the correspondence, plaintiffs’ counsel declined to remove it because the parties were disputing the flow of funds in the underlying transactions. The Ambassador requested that the paragraph be removed from the original complaint and any amended complaint the court might accept. The correspondence also stated that the Ambassador did not waive any available immunities.
Legal standard
The court cited Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to strike material from a pleading if it is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The court also cited a three-part standard requiring the movant to show that no supporting evidence would be admissible, the allegations have no bearing on the issues, and allowing them to remain would prejudice the movant.
Court’s action
The court did not rule on whether paragraph 125 should be stricken. Instead, it directed the plaintiffs to respond within 14 days and address that question. The opinion therefore leaves the request to strike unresolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.