Li v. China Merchants Bank Co., LTD.

Background

Hui Li brought discrimination and retaliation claims against China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. and Kang Pan, identified in the opinion as the Bank’s General Manager. The defendants filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to remove redundant, irrelevant, improper, or scandalous material from a pleading.

The defendants sought to strike paragraphs 62-63, 90-100, 105, and 116-118. They also sought to strike paragraphs 134-136 and 139, which referred to mediation and settlement discussions. The defendants argued that the challenged allegations were immaterial, prejudicial, unsupported, or protected by Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and the parties’ mediation agreement.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that motions to strike are generally disfavored and should be granted only for a strong reason. The moving party must show that the allegations have no bearing on the case, that no supporting evidence could be admissible, and that allowing the allegations to remain would prejudice the moving party. At the pleading stage, the court considered whether the allegations could be relevant and unduly harmful, rather than deciding whether Li would ultimately prove them.

The court granted the motion as to paragraphs 62-63 and 90-100 because they relied on a separate discrimination action filed by another employee. That action had been voluntarily dismissed and had not produced a decision on the merits or legally permissible findings of fact. The court also noted that paragraph 74 cited that action in a similar way and struck paragraph 74 on its own for the same reason.

The court denied the motion as to paragraph 105. That paragraph alleged that a man would not have been similarly criticized or formally disciplined. The court found that the allegation directly concerned Li’s gender-discrimination claims and held that the fact that an allegation was conclusory, by itself, was not enough to strike it.

The court also denied the motion as to paragraphs 116-118. Those paragraphs alleged that Pan directed Li to violate Bank policies, potentially the law, and that her refusal led to further retaliation and discrimination. Although the allegations could be inflammatory, the court found that they were sufficiently connected to Li’s retaliation claims to remain in the complaint at that stage.

As to paragraphs 134-136 and 139, the court concluded that Federal Rule of Evidence 408 would not necessarily bar the settlement-related material if it were offered for another purpose, such as supporting a retaliation claim rather than proving the validity of the underlying claim. But the parties’ mediation agreement expressly barred disclosure and use of statements, offers, promises, and conduct from the negotiations. The court therefore granted the motion to strike those paragraphs under the agreement.

Disposition