Forza v. Quick Collect Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 20, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01645
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 WENDY FORZA, CASE NO. C21-1645-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 QUICK COLLECT, INC., 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 8.) Having 16 thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES 17 the motion for the reasons explained below. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint, alleging that Defendant sought to 20 collect medical debt in violation of various state and federal laws. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendant now 21 moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) 22 because those portions are “immaterial and impertinent” to Defendant and the facts of this case. 23 (Dkt. No. 8 at 1.) 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Under Rule 12(f), a district court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or 26 any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” “[T]he function of a 12(f) motion 1 to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious 2 issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . .” Sidney–Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 3 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). “Immaterial matter is that which has no essential or important 4 relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 5 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (internal 6 quotations omitted). “Impertinent matter consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not 7 necessary, to the issues in question.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). However, Rule 12(f) 8 motions are viewed with disfavor by the courts and infrequently granted. McDaniels v. Stewart, 9 2017 WL 1543325, slip op. at 9 (W.D. Wash. 2017). 10 Like all motions, a motion to strike must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking 11 the order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). “[A] sweeping, indiscriminate motion to strike, without any 12 explanation as to how or why the targeted paragraphs are immaterial or redundant, does not 13 contain the requisite particularity or otherwise clearly show that an order to strike is warranted.” 14 Arias-Zeballos v. Tan, 2006 WL 3075528, slip op. at 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal quotations 15 omitted); see also McDaniels, 2017 WL 1543325, slip op. at 9 (denying motion to strike where 16 movant failed to show how striking the materials would avoid unnecessary expenditure or 17 streamline litigation, or how the documents had no possible bearing on the case). 18 Defendant’s motion fails to meet the particularity requirement or otherwise clearly show 19 that an order to strike is warranted. Defendant has provided no analysis demonstrating why the 20 paragraphs it moves to strike are immaterial and impertinent. Nor has Defendant shown how 21 striking the identified paragraphs would avoid unnecessary expenditure or streamline litigation. 22 Moreover, to the extent that the identified paragraphs detail recent developments concerning the 23 collection of medical debts, Defendant has not averred that this background material is unduly 24 prejudicial. See Cortina v. Goya Foods, Inc., 94 F.Supp.3d 1174, 1182 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (“A 25 court should not strike allegations supplying background or historical material unless it is unduly 26 prejudicial to the opponent.”) 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED. 3 DATED this 20th day of January 2022. A 4 5 6 John C. Coughenour 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26