The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. )
ST. PAUL’S FOUNDATION, )
)
Plaintiff-Relator, )
) Case No. 3:24-cv-00750
v. ) Judge Aleta A. Trauger
)
TIMOTHY WIPPERMAN, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Before the court is defendant Timothy Wipperman’s Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 48), which
requests only that the court strike the first sentence of Paragraph 15(e) of the Second Amended
and Restated Complaint (“SAC”) (Doc. No. 44) filed by plaintiff-relator St. Paul’s Foundation
(“St. Paul’s”). St. Paul’s opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 54.) As set forth herein, the motion will
be granted.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes the court, on its own or upon a motion,
“to strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” Generally, “[m]otions to strike are viewed with disfavor and are not frequently
granted.” Operating Eng’rs Loc. 324 Health Care Plan v. G & W Constr. Co., 783 F.3d 1045,
1050 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States, 201 F.2d 819,
822 (6th Cir. 1953)).
“An immaterial matter is that which has ‘no bearing on the subject matter of the litigation,’
while ‘[i]mpertinent allegations include statements that are not necessary to the issues presented.’”
M.F. v. Cleveland Metro. Sch. Dist., No. 1:23CV2308, 2024 WL 4564423, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Oct.
24, 2024) (quoting McKinney v. Bayer Corp., 2010 WL 2756915, at *1 (N.D. Ohio July 12, 2010)).
A scandalous matter “refers to any allegation that unnecessarily reflects on the moral character of
an individual or states anything in repulsive language that detracts from the dignity of the court.”
Id. (citation omitted). “Generally, the matter to be stricken must have ‘no possible relation to the
controversy.’” House of Providence v. Meyers, 458 F. Supp. 3d 621, 647 (E.D. Mich. 2020)
(quoting Brown, 201 F.2d at 822).
II. DISCUSSION
This lawsuit involves a fraudulent and unauthorized loan application allegedly submitted
to the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) by the defendant on behalf of the
relator. The SAC also includes allegations showing that the defendant had a personal relationship
with the relator’s principal, Fr. Andrew Bushell. These allegations, to the extent they tend to prove
that the defendant in Tennessee knew of the existence and mission of the relator, in Massachusetts,
have at least some “relation to the controversy.” Id. The particular paragraph of the SAC to which
the defendant objects, however, concerns Bushell’s relationship and interventions on behalf of the
defendant’s son. The relator alleges that all of the subparts of paragraph 15, including paragraph
15(e), are intended to be “illustrative of the efforts taken by Relator1 to provide spiritual and
practical guidance” to the defendant and his family to “help them live more moral and productive
lives.” (SAC ¶ 15(e).)
The allegations of actions that Bushell took on behalf of the defendant’s son are not
remotely relevant to the question of whether the defendant violated the FCA by submitting a false
1 The relator is St. Paul’s, not Bushell, but the court filings submitted by St. Paul’s tend to
conflate the two.
and fraudulent loan application to the SBA. The facts that the defendant seeks to strike in paragraph
15(e) are immaterial and impertinent, insofar as they are not necessary to prove the relator’s FCA
claim or to establish any background facts that relate to the defendant’s possible liability under the
FCA.
The motion is well taken and will be granted.
Ii. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 48), which is directed to
the first sentence of Paragraph 15(e) of the SAC, is hereby GRANTED, and the court will not
consider the objectionable material for any purpose.
It is so ORDERED.
Meili bog
United States District Judge