Aegean Maritime Petroleum S.A. v. Kavo Platanos M/V

W.D. Washington

Aegean Maritime Petroleum S.A. v. Kavo Platanos M/V

DecidedMay 31, 2024

Docket2:15-cv-00172

StatusUnknown

This text of Aegean Maritime Petroleum S.A. v. Kavo Platanos M/V (Aegean Maritime Petroleum S.A. v. Kavo Platanos M/V) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aegean Maritime Petroleum S.A. v. Kavo Platanos M/V, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 AEGEAN MARITIME PETROLEUM S.A., CASE NO. 2:15-cv-00172-JHC 8

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE 9 (DKT. # 138) v. 10 KAVO PLATANOS M/V, ET AL., 11

Defendant. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Allegations of the 15 Third Amended Complaint and Motion to Make More Definite and Certain. Dkt. # 138. 16 Defendants seek to strike certain portions of Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Dkt. # 137 at 2, 17 10) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Dkt. # 138 at 3–4; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) 18 (“The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, 19 impertinent, or scandalous matter.”). Defendants also contend that Defendant’s first and second 20 claims for relief should be made more definite and certain under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 12(e). Dkt. # 138 at 4–6; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). (“A party may move for a more definite 22 statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or 23 ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”). Plaintiff opposes. Dkt. # 141. 24 1 The Court has considered the materials filed in support of, and in opposition to, the 2 || motion; the rest of the case file; and the governing law. Being fully advised and for the reasons 3 outlined in Plaintiff's opposition (Dkt. # 141), the Court DENIES the motion (Dkt. # 138). See || also Chao Chen v. Geo Grp., Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 1130, 1132 (W.D. Wash. 2018) (Rule 12(f) 5 || motions to strike are generally disfavored because the motions may be used as delay tactics and 6 _ || because of the strong policy favoring resolution on the merits); McMillan v. Cpride Grp. LLC, 7 || No. 2:21-CV-549-BJR, 2022 WL 1203741, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 22, 2022) (“Motions for a g || more definite statement are disfavored, and ordinarily restricted to situations where a pleading 9 suffers from unintelligibility rather than want of detail.”) (citations and quotations omitted). 10 Dated this 31st day of May, 2024. 11 12 Chur 13 John H. Chun 4 United States District Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 AEGEAN MARITIME PETROLEUM S.A., CASE NO. 2:15-cv-00172-JHC 8

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE 9 (DKT. # 138) v. 10 KAVO PLATANOS M/V, ET AL., 11

Defendant. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Allegations of the 15 Third Amended Complaint and Motion to Make More Definite and Certain. Dkt. # 138. 16 Defendants seek to strike certain portions of Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (Dkt. # 137 at 2, 17 10) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Dkt. # 138 at 3–4; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) 18 (“The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, 19 impertinent, or scandalous matter.”). Defendants also contend that Defendant’s first and second 20 claims for relief should be made more definite and certain under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 12(e). Dkt. # 138 at 4–6; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). (“A party may move for a more definite 22 statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or 23 ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”). Plaintiff opposes. Dkt. # 141. 24 1 The Court has considered the materials filed in support of, and in opposition to, the 2 || motion; the rest of the case file; and the governing law. Being fully advised and for the reasons 3 outlined in Plaintiff's opposition (Dkt. # 141), the Court DENIES the motion (Dkt. # 138). See || also Chao Chen v. Geo Grp., Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 1130, 1132 (W.D. Wash. 2018) (Rule 12(f) 5 || motions to strike are generally disfavored because the motions may be used as delay tactics and 6 _ || because of the strong policy favoring resolution on the merits); McMillan v. Cpride Grp. LLC, 7 || No. 2:21-CV-549-BJR, 2022 WL 1203741, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 22, 2022) (“Motions for a g || more definite statement are disfavored, and ordinarily restricted to situations where a pleading 9 suffers from unintelligibility rather than want of detail.”) (citations and quotations omitted). 10 Dated this 31st day of May, 2024. 11 12 Chur 13 John H. Chun 4 United States District Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Aegean Maritime Petroleum S.A. v. Kavo Platanos M/V, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aegean-maritime-petroleum-sa-v-kavo-platanos-mv-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack