Phillies’ slugger Ryan Howard was ejected from a game this week in extra innings, leaving his team (which had no more position players) to insert ace pitcher Roy Oswalt into the outfield and to use him at the plate. First time the Phils used a pitcher in the field in decades. Howard argued a mistakenly called third strike on a check swing.
Today’s post relates to a different kind of mistaken strike. The Ninth Circuit has explained that trial courts cannot strike a claim for damages on the ground that the damages are precluded as a matter of law. Whittlestone Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., No. 09-16353 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010). Specifically, Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not authorize the court to strike the claim for damages on the basis that such damages are legally not recoverable.
Here, the defendant field a Rule 12 motion to strike the paragraphs of the complaint that sought the recovery of lost profits and consequential damages, in alleged violation of the plain language of the parties’ contract. The trial court granted the motion, and plaintiff appealed.
Rule 12(f) states that a district court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The function of a 12(f) motion
to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that would arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial. While the motion here seemed to fit the purpose of the rule, it didn’t fit the language. The court found that the damages allegations met none of those listed categories.
Handi-Craft argued that Whittlestone’s claim for lost profits and consequential damages should be stricken from the complaint, because such damages were precluded as a matter of law. But that meant that Handi-Craft’s 12(f) motion was really an attempt to have certain portions of Whittlestone’s complaint dismissed or to obtain summary judgment against Whittlestone as to those portions of the suit, which attempt was better suited for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a Rule 56
motion, not a Rule 12(f) motion.
And this was not harmless error, said the 9th, because the standard for review of the different motions is not the same, and there was some question whether a 12(b)(6) motion would be granted, had it been filed.
The court concluded that Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not authorize a district court to dismiss a claim for damages on the basis it is precluded as a matter of