United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
SAMANTHA J. JACKSON
STANDARD MORTGAGE CORP., FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, FEDERAL HOME MORTGAGE CORP.
PATRICK HANNA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
pending are the plaintiff's motions to strike (Rec. Docs.
75, 77, 79) the defendants' memoranda in support of their
motions to dismiss (Rec. Docs. 54, 55, 56). For the reasons
set forth below, the motions to strike are denied.
to strike are governed by Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which states that “[t]he court may
strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” A motion to strike under Rule 12(f) “is
a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the
purposes of justice.” Accordingly, Rule 12(f) motions
to strike are viewed with disfavor, and are infrequently
granted. Furthermore, such motions generally are
not granted unless the movant shows it has been
prejudiced. Disputed factual issues should not be
resolved on a motion to strike,  and “even when
technically appropriate and well-founded, ” motions to
strike are not to be granted “in the absence of a
showing of prejudice to the moving
party.” Deciding whether to strike all or a
portion of a pleading lies within the court's
plaintiff did not argue that the defendants' memoranda
constituted an insufficient defense or that they contained
material that was redundant, impertinent, immaterial, or
scandalous. Therefore, she presented no valid support for her
motions to strike.
the plaintiff argued that the memoranda were not timely
filed. The plaintiff also admitted (a) that she was on a
telephone status conference on October 21, 2019, when this
Court reminded the defendants' counsel to file the
supporting memoranda but did not assign a definite deadline
for doing so, and (b) that she knew the defendants'
counsel had recently been hospitalized. This Court finds that
there were good reasons for the defendants' delay in
filing the memoranda.
on October 31, 2019, this Court granted the defendants'
motion for extension of the deadlines for responding to the
plaintiff's second amended complaint and for filing
memoranda in support of the motions to dismiss. (Rec. Doc.
In support of that motion, counsel for the defendants
explained that she had been hospitalized and unable to work
on this matter, and she also stated that she had attempted
but been unsuccessful in reaching the plaintiff by telephone
to seek an agreement extending the briefing period. This
Court's order (Rec. Doc. 70) allowed the defendants until
November 15 to file the memoranda. The memoranda were in fact
filed on November 15.
most important, the plaintiff did not demonstrate any way in
which she was prejudiced by the defendants' late filing.
Indeed, after the memoranda were filed, the plaintiff was
expressly given the customary twenty-one days in which to
file her responses to the motions. (Rec. Doc. 74). Moreover,
the jury trial was continued in the October 21 telephone
conference, giving the parties additional time in which to
prepare their cases. Accordingly, there is no basis on which
the plaintiff can argue that the defendants' delay in
filing the necessary memoranda worked to her disadvantage.
these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs motions to
strike (Rec. Docs. 75, 77, 79) the memoranda supporting the
defendants' motions to dismiss are DENIED.
 Augustus v. Bd. of Pub.
Instruction of Escambia County, Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868
(5th Cir. 1962) (quoting Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States, 201 F.2d 819,
822 (6th Cir. 1953)).
 Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales,
Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1057
(5th Cir. 1982); C. Wright & A. Miller, 5C
Fed. Prac. & Proc. 3d § 1380.
 See, e.g., Coco v. United
States, 569 F.2d 367, 372 (5th Cir. 1978)
(“While we do not condone the government's
tardiness in responding to the court's order to show
cause, we believe the district court acted within its
discretion in denying the motion to strike. Coco has not
shown the slightest prejudice resulting from the short
Augustus v. Bd. of Pub.
Instruction of Escambia Cnty., Fla., 306 F.2d at