United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER AND OPINION ON MOTIONS TO STRIKE
KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to
Strike Immaterial, Impertinent and Scandalous Matter From
Third Amended Complaint [DE 179] (“Second Motion to
Strike”); Defendants James and Marta Batmasian's
Motion to Strike and/or Exclude Supplemental Filing by
Plaintiff and Request for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs'
Counsel [DE 281] (“Third Motion to Strike”); and
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplement Nunc Pro
Tunc [DE 292]. The Court has carefully considered all
relevant filings, including the motions, responses, replies,
supplements, notice of authority, and is otherwise fully
advised in the premises.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “the
court may order stricken from any pleading ... any redundant,
immaterial,  impertinent or scandalous matter.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). The purpose of a motion to strike is to
clean up the pleadings, remove irrelevant or otherwise
confusing materials, and avoid unnecessary forays into
immaterial matters. Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v.
Wintice Group, Inc., No. 6:10-cv-44-Orl-19GJK, 2010 WL
2367227, *1 (M.D. Fla. June 14, 2010); Hutchings v. Fed.
Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4186994 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8,
2008). It is not intended to procure the dismissal of all or
part of a complaint. Williams v. Delray Auto Mall,
Inc., 289 F.R.D. 697, 700 (S.D. Fla. 2013). Granting a
motion to strike is a drastic remedy and is disfavored by the
courts. Nash v. O.R. Colan Group, LLC, No.
12-60759-CIV, 2012 WL 4338817, *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2012)
(citing Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC,
211 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2002)); Tracfone
Wireless, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc., 642 F.Supp.2d
1354, 1361 (S.D. Fla. 2009). If there is any doubt as to
whether under any contingency the matter may raise an issue,
the motion should be denied. Therefore, a motion to strike
will be granted only if the matter sought to be omitted has
no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the
issues, or otherwise prejudice a party. 2 James W. Moore
et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶
12.21, at 2317 (2d ed. 1992).
Second Motion to Strike,  Defendants object to certain
allegations contained within paragraphs 39, 42, 52 and 95 of
the Third Amended Complaint (DE 173). It is asserted that
these allegations are irrelevant and have no purpose other
than to disparage, harass, belittle, and embarrass the
Defendants and their counsel, and to inflame and prejudice
the trier of fact against Defendants.
39. The Batmasians have gross revenue which exceeds $500, 000
for each of the past three (3) years, and as of December 31,
2010 claimed to have total assets $1, 676, 635, 926, and it
has only grown since then, and the vast majority of these
assets consist of real estate owned by the Batmasians jointly
or in the name of Marta Batmasian.
DE 173. Defendants argue that this paragraph should be
stricken because “it does not relate to any disputed
issue in this action[.]” DE 268 at 3. Defendants also
object to the allegations as to their personal wealth and the
allegation that “it has only grown since then, ”
asserting these allegations are “immaterial and
impertinent to the FLSA claim[, ] . . . and serve[s] no other
purpose than to appeal to class bias.” DE 179 at 7.
arguments are rejected. The fact that Defendants now admit
that the FLSA applies to them under enterprise coverage
because their annual gross volume of business is not less
than $500, 00 does not mean that Plaintiffs allegation of
such a key element of their claim should be stricken.
See 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1). In addition,
Defendants' objections to allegations regarding the
Batmasians' personal wealth is rejected. As previously
stated in this Court's ruling on the First Motion to
Strike, “allegations regarding the personal financial
worth of the Batmasians is directly relevant to the
establishment of either individual or enterprise
coverage.” DE 137 at 4. Concerns about inflaming and
prejudicing the trier of fact against Defendants is without
foundation. The jury is only exposed to evidence admitted at
Court is next directed to Footnote 1 to Paragraph 42, and
Paragraph 52, which read:
42(1). The Defendant disputes that James Baker was their
controller and are taking the position that he was their
chief financial officer, but Baker was never listed as a
chief financial officer on any corporate or partnership
papers filed with the State of Florida, and witness George
Sigalos knows that Baker was the controller and not the chief
financial officer, because the Batmasians introduced Baker as
being their controller to him on more than one occasion.
52. The Batmasians have the power to hire and fire and
exercise it regularly, as ...