You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Saylavee LLC v. Hockler

Citations: 228 F.R.D. 425; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17132; 2005 WL 1353615Docket: No. CIV. 3:04CV1344CFDTP

Court: District Court, D. Connecticut; June 8, 2005; Federal District Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
The court denied the defendants' motion for leave to file a motion to strike, which was submitted over nine months after the initial complaint. The defendants aimed to expand on their arguments from their pending second motion to dismiss, but the court deemed this unnecessary. Upon reviewing the proposed motion to strike, the court determined that none of the twenty sections in question were redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous, as defined by Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted that merely hyperbolic allegations and poor drafting do not meet the threshold for striking under Rule 12(f).

Additionally, the court highlighted that the defendants could have included a request to strike these allegations in their first motion to dismiss but failed to do so. This omission barred any subsequent motion to strike, according to the prohibition against successive Rule 12 motions outlined in subsection (g), intended to prevent excessive motion practice in federal courts.

The court clarified that it was treating this as a non-dispositive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. It also noted that the defendants had not yet filed an answer to the complaint, thereby rendering their motion timely, as the twenty-day limitation did not apply.