WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC.
v.
SLATTERY, SOBEL & DECAMP, LLP
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) is improper when applied to motions, as the rule only permits striking pleadings.
Plaintiffs filed motions for default judgment and permanent injunction. The Pandora Defendants moved to strike these motions, arguing they were premat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(F) (Motion To Strike) cases and more on FLexlaw
v. Case No: 6:19-cv-1908-WWB-EJK
SLATTERY, SOBEL & DECAMP, LLP, DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP, CARLSBAD LAW GROUP,
LLP, JL ''SEAN"
SLATTERY, PANDORA
MARKETING, LLC, PANDORA
SERVICING, LLC, INTERMARKETING MEDIA, LLC, KENNETH EDDY, WILLIAM WILSON, and RICH FOLK,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on the Pandora Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment and Motion for Permanent Injunction (the “Motion”), filed September 22, 2022. (Doc. 878). On October 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 891.) Thus, the Motion is ripe for review. Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be denied. The Pandora Defendants seek to strike Plaintiffs’ Motions for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction as premature prior to the adjudication of claims that may “raise the possibility of inconsistent judgments,” contradict the current order of adjudication, and deny Pandora’s due process rights, “including the right to an evidentiary hearing as to damages.” (Doc. 878 at 1.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows the Court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (emphasis added). However, “the plain language of 12(f) applies only to pleadings and not to motions or their opposition.” Hooker v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 8:18-cv-2000-T-36JSS, 2019 WL 12493574, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July
24, 2019); Marfut v. Gardens of Gulf Cove POA, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-595-FtM-38CM, 2018 WL 746866, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2018); Kahama VI, LLC v. HJH, LLC, No. 8:11- cv-2029-T-30TBM, 2014 WL 3721298, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2014) (collecting cases holding that “a motion to strike a filing that is not a pleading . . . is improper.”). Furthermore, the Court notes that even the striking of pleadings is considered to be a drastic remedy and is disfavored by courts. See Gilbert v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 95 F. Supp. 3d 1358, 1361 (M.D. Fla. 2015). Plaintiffs’ Motions for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Docs. 874, 875) are not pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Therefore, they are “not susceptible to being stricken under Rule 12(f).” Hooker, 2019 WL 12493574 at *1. As such, it is hereby ORDERED that the Pandora Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 878) is
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 14, 2022.