Maverick USA Inc v. Independent Contractors of Maverick Transportation LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Docket: 4:24-cv-00115
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

MAVERICK USA, INC. PLAINTIFF

V. 4:24CV00115 JM

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS OF MAVERICK TRANSPORTATION, LLC d/b/a Maverick Transportation LLC Ind. Cont. DEFENDANT

ORDER Plaintiff asks the Court to strike portions of the Defendant’s Answer. The Defendant has responded, and the Plaintiff has replied. It appears that the parties, or their affiliates, have been engaged in litigation previously. This lawsuit relates indirectly to that litigation and some of those facts are included in the Complaint and the Answer here. The parties are cautioned that this case is a trademark case and, as such, the Court’s inquiry is whether Defendant has used Plaintiff’s trademark without Plaintiff’s consent and whether the Defendant has violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125 by the alleged use. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides: “The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. “Despite this broad discretion however, striking a party's pleadings is an extreme measure, and, as a result, we have previously held that “[m]otions to strike under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.” Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221, 229 (8th Cir. 1977) (citing 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1380 at 783 (1969)). See also, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gibson, 829 F.Supp. 1103, 1106 (W.D. Mo. 1993); 2 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 12.37[1] (3d ed. 2000) (“Courts disfavor the motion to strike, because it ‘proposes a drastic remedy.’”). The Court has reviewed the pleadings and finds that the motion to strike must be DENIED. The Court will consider the affirmative defenses in a motion for summary judgment, if necessary. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 11) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19" day of April, 2024. O, M. ht United States District Judge