The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
NO. 3:21-CV-00213-FDW-DCK
WILLIAM WESTWOOD,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
CAROLINA MENS CLINIC
HUNTER HANSEN,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiff’s
Complaint. (Doc. No. 3). The Motion is fully briefed and is ripe for review. (Doc. Nos. 9, 13). For
the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
Under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court “may strike from a
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “Although courts have broad discretion in disposing of motions to strike,
such motions ‘are generally viewed with disfavor because striking a portion of a pleading is a
drastic remedy and because it is often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic.’” Chapman
v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, No. 3:09-cv-37-RJC, 2009 WL 1652463, at *1 (W.D.N.C. June
11, 2009) (quoting Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted in original); Brown v. Inst. for Family Centered
Servs., Inc., 394 F. Supp. 2d 724, 727 (M.D.N.C. 2005)).
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 6, 2021, alleging copyright infringement against
Defendants. (Doc. No. 1). Shortly thereafter, Defendants timely filed the present Motion to Strike
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), arguing eight (8) paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Complaint should be
stricken because they impermissibly refer to settlement negotiations in violation of Fed. R. Evid.
408. (Doc. No. 4).
After review of the specified paragraphs and the briefing, the Court finds that the specified
paragraphs are not redundant, impertinent, immaterial, or scandalous. The specified portions of
the Complaint simply allege Plaintiff has attempted in good faith to resolve the issues without
judicial intervention, which are standard allegations in any complaint. (Doc. No. 1, 55-62). The
Court is likewise not persuaded that the specified portions of the Complaint run afoul of the Federal
Rules of Evidence at this stage in the litigation. Given the generally disfavored view of Rule 12(f)
motions and the lack of legal authority Defendants cite in their Motion, the Court does not find it
necessary or appropriate to resort to a drastic remedy such as striking portions of Plaintiffs
Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike, (Doc. No. 3), is
DENIED. Defendants may raise the issues set forth in their Motion to Strike again in later
dispositive motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 21, 2021
Frank D. Whitney ¥
United States District Judge * ey