The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JACQUELYN LISICKI,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 2:19-cv-648-FtM-29MRM
LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s Motion to
Strike (Doc. #16) filed on October 28, 2019. Plaintiff filed a
Response in Opposition (Doc. #17) on October 29, 2019. For the
reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
I.
Pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a party may move to strike “any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter” within the pleadings. The
court enjoys broad discretion in determining whether to grant or
deny these motions to strike. Anchor Hocking Corp. v.
Jacksonville Elec. Auth., 419 F. Supp. 992, 1000 (M.D. Fla. 1976).
“The purpose of a motion to strike is to clean up the pleadings,
streamline litigation, and avoid unnecessary forays into
immaterial matters.” Hutchings v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4186994,
*2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2008) (marks and citation omitted). It is
not intended to “procure the dismissal of all or part of a
complaint.” Id. Likewise, a motion to strike is a drastic remedy
and is disfavored by the courts. Schmidt v. Life Ins. Co. of N.
Am., 289 F.R.D. 357, 358 (M.D. Fla. 2012). Therefore, a motion
to strike should be granted only if “the matter sought to be
omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may
confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.” Id.
II.
Plaintiff Jacquelyn Lisicki has brought this action against
defendant Lee Memorial Health System and alleges she was terminated
from her employment due to age discrimination. (Doc. #12.)
According to the Amended Complaint, plaintiff worked for defendant
for nearly ten years, during which she was subjected to disparate
treatment because of her age. (Id. pp. 1-2.) After complaining
about the disparities, plaintiff was allegedly told by her manager
that her job was in jeopardy unless she “proved her worth.” (Id.
p. 2.) Per the Amended Complaint, plaintiff was forced out of her
job shortly thereafter. (Id.)
The two-count Amended Complaint contains ninety-one
paragraphs of allegations. Defendant’s motion seeks to strike a
number of these paragraphs, arguing they should be stricken “so as
not to confuse the issues and prejudice” defendant. (Doc. #16,
p. 3.) Specifically, defendant seeks to strike those portions of
the Amended Complaint that (1) reference a prior age discrimination
lawsuit against defendant and allege past mistreatment of older
workers, and (2) reference defendant’s revenues, its president and
CEO, and its board of directors. (Id. pp. 3-9.) Defendant argues
these paragraphs are immaterial, impertinent, scandalous,
unnecessary, and unrelated to plaintiff’s claims. (Id.)
Having reviewed the allegations in the Amended Complaint, as
well as the arguments of the parties, the Court will grant
defendant’s motion. The following portions of the Amended
Complaint are immaterial and shall be stricken:
•
The fifth sentence in the first paragraph;
•
Paragraphs two through four, as well as the accompanying
footnotes;
•
Paragraphs fifteen through twenty, as well as the
accompanying footnote; and
•
Paragraph forty-six.
(Doc. #12, pp. 2-12.)
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. #16) is GRANTED and the
portions of the Amended Complaint listed above shall be stricken.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 12th day
of November, 2019.
J E. STEELE
5 IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies:
Counsel of Record