Motion to Strike

MOTION TO STRIKE

Template for Federal and State Court Proceedings

Practice Note: Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), the court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Motions to strike are generally disfavored and are infrequently granted. Courts often characterize them as "time wasters" unless the challenged material is clearly improper and its inclusion will prejudice the movant. Counsel should carefully evaluate whether a motion to strike is the appropriate procedural vehicle before filing. In some circumstances, a motion to dismiss, motion for a more definite statement, or motion in limine may be more effective.

CHECKLIST BEFORE FILING

☐ Identified the specific paragraphs, allegations, or defenses to be stricken
☐ Confirmed the challenged material appears in a "pleading" as defined by FRCP 7(a)
☐ Verified that the motion is timely under Rule 12(f)(2) (before responding to the pleading, or within 21 days after being served if no responsive pleading is permitted)
☐ Classified each challenged portion as: insufficient defense, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
☐ Determined that the challenged material would cause prejudice if not stricken
☐ Evaluated whether a motion to dismiss or motion in limine would be more appropriate
☐ Reviewed local rules for motion format, page limits, and briefing schedule
☐ Conducted meet-and-confer with opposing counsel as required by local rules
☐ Prepared a chart or appendix identifying each challenged paragraph and the basis for striking
☐ Confirmed ECF filing requirements and courtesy copy obligations

CAPTION AND CASE INFORMATION

[________________________________]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[________________________________] DISTRICT OF [________________________________]

[________________________________],
Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. [________________________________]

[________________________________], Judge [________________________________]
Defendant(s).

[MOVANT'S] MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF [PLAINTIFF'S/DEFENDANT'S] [COMPLAINT/ANSWER/COUNTERCLAIM]

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), [________________________________] ("Movant"), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court for an order striking the following from [________________________________]'s [Complaint / Answer / Counterclaim / Amended [____]] filed on [__/__/____] (the "Challenged Pleading"):

Material to Be Stricken:

In support thereof, Movant states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

Movant respectfully requests that this Court strike the above-identified material from the Challenged Pleading because it is [insufficient as a matter of law / redundant / immaterial / impertinent / scandalous] and its retention in the pleading will [prejudice Movant / confuse the issues / unduly burden the proceedings / inflame the jury]. The challenged material has no proper place in a pleading governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and should be excised to ensure that this litigation proceeds on the merits of cognizable claims and defenses.

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. [________________________________] filed the Challenged Pleading on [__/__/____]. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. The Challenged Pleading contains [________________________________] paragraphs / affirmative defenses, of which Movant challenges [________________________________] specific provisions as identified above.

3. [Describe the nature of the challenged material and its context within the broader pleading.]

4. On [__/__/____], undersigned counsel conferred with counsel for [________________________________] regarding this motion. [Opposing counsel opposes the motion / was unable to resolve this dispute without court intervention.]

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Rule 12(f) Generally

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. The court may act:
(1) on its own; or
(2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading."

The rule serves the purpose of "avoid[ing] the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with [them] prior to trial." Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983).

B. Definitions of Strikeable Matter

The five categories of material that may be stricken under Rule 12(f) are:

1. Insufficient Defense: A defense that is legally insufficient on its face -- i.e., a defense that, even if proven, would not constitute a valid defense to the claims asserted. See Sec. People, Inc. v. Classic Woodworking, LLC, 2005 WL 1413411, at *3 (D. Minn. June 16, 2005).

2. Redundant Matter: Allegations or material that are needlessly repetitive of other allegations in the same pleading and serve no additional purpose. See Wilkerson v. Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 170 (E.D. Cal. 2005).

3. Immaterial Matter: Matter that has no essential or important relationship to the claims or defenses and bears no possible relation to the controversy. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994).

4. Impertinent Matter: Allegations that are not responsive to the issues raised and consist of statements that do not pertain and are unnecessary to the issues in question. See id.

5. Scandalous Matter: Allegations that improperly cast a derogatory light on someone, usually a party, and that are not relevant to the action. Scandalous allegations are those that reflect unnecessarily on the defendant's moral character or use repulsive language that detracts from the dignity of the court. See Camacho v. Auto. Club of S. Cal., 2006 WL 3499682, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2006).

C. Standard for Granting a Motion to Strike

Motions to strike are generally viewed with disfavor and are "infrequently granted." Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). A motion to strike should be granted only when the matter is clearly deficient as a defense or as an allegation, and when the movant demonstrates that the challenged material will cause prejudice. See Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1057 (5th Cir. 1982).

However, motions to strike are properly granted when:

• The challenged defense is legally insufficient as a matter of law;
• The challenged material is clearly unrelated to any claim or defense;
• The inclusion of the material would confuse the issues for the trier of fact;
• The material is prejudicial and its probative value, if any, is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice; or
• The material violates Rule 8's requirement that pleadings contain "a short and plain statement." See Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2010).

D. Striking Affirmative Defenses

Courts may strike affirmative defenses under Rule 12(f) when they are insufficient as a matter of law. An affirmative defense is insufficient if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations of the defense as true, the defense fails to state a legally recognized defense to the claim. See Sec. People, Inc., 2005 WL 1413411, at 3. Some courts require that affirmative defenses meet the plausibility standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal*, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), though there is a circuit split on this issue.

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Challenged [Defenses/Allegations] Are Legally Insufficient

[________________________________]

[For insufficient defenses, address each challenged defense:]

1. [Defense Name/Number] Is Legally Insufficient

The [____] Affirmative Defense asserts [________________________________]. This defense is legally insufficient because [________________________________]. Even accepting the defense as true, it does not constitute a valid defense to Plaintiff's claims because [________________________________]. [Cite applicable authority establishing that the asserted defense is not cognizable.]

2. [Defense Name/Number] Is Legally Insufficient

[________________________________]

B. The Challenged Material Is Immaterial and Impertinent

[________________________________]

[For immaterial/impertinent allegations:]

The allegations contained in [paragraphs [____] through [____]] of the Challenged Pleading are immaterial and impertinent because they bear no possible relation to any claim or defense in this action. Specifically:

1. [Paragraph [____]] alleges [________________________________], which has no relevance to [________________________________] and serves only to [confuse the issues / inject inflammatory material / distract from the merits].

2. [Paragraph [____]] alleges [________________________________], which is entirely unrelated to any element of the claims or defenses at issue.

These allegations should be stricken because their retention would [confuse the jury / require the parties to expend unnecessary discovery resources / inject irrelevant and prejudicial material into the proceedings].

C. The Challenged Material Is Redundant

[________________________________]

[For redundant material:]

The allegations in [paragraphs [____]] are needlessly repetitive of the allegations in [paragraphs [____]] and serve no additional purpose. Redundant pleading increases the cost and complexity of litigation without advancing any legitimate interest. These duplicative allegations should be stricken.

D. The Challenged Material Is Scandalous

[________________________________]

[For scandalous material:]

The allegations in [paragraphs [____]] contain [inflammatory / derogatory / gratuitously offensive] language that casts [________________________________] in a false and prejudicial light. Specifically, these allegations [________________________________]. This material serves no legitimate purpose in the pleading and would unfairly prejudice [Movant / the jury / the proceedings] if allowed to remain. See, e.g., Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 664 (7th Cir. 1992) (striking allegations that were "unnecessarily pejorative").

E. The Challenged Material Will Cause Prejudice If Not Stricken

The retention of the challenged material in the Challenged Pleading will prejudice Movant because [________________________________]:

☐ The material will confuse the issues for the trier of fact and distract from the merits of the claims and defenses.

☐ The material will require Movant to expend substantial time and resources responding to legally insufficient defenses or irrelevant allegations through discovery and motion practice.

☐ The material contains inflammatory language that would unduly prejudice the jury against Movant.

☐ The material violates Rule 8's requirement of a "short and plain statement" and imposes unnecessary burdens on the court and opposing party.

V. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

Pursuant to Local Rule [________________________________], undersigned counsel certifies that on [__/__/____], counsel for Movant conferred with counsel for [________________________________] regarding the relief sought in this motion. [The parties were unable to resolve this dispute without court intervention.]

VI. REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Strike [paragraphs / affirmative defenses] [________________________________] from the Challenged Pleading, as identified in the table above and in the body of this motion;

2. Order [________________________________] to file an amended [Complaint / Answer / Counterclaim] omitting the stricken material within [____] days of the date of this Order;

3. [In the alternative, if the Court declines to strike the identified material, preclude [________________________________] from introducing evidence in support of the stricken allegations or defenses at trial or in discovery;]

4. Award Movant its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this motion, to the extent permitted by law; and

5. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Movant's Motion to Strike and enter the attached Proposed Order.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: [__/__/____]

________________________________________
[________________________________]
Attorney for [________________________________]
[________________________________] (Firm Name)
[________________________________] (Address)
[________________________________] (City, State, ZIP)
[________________________________] (Telephone)
[________________________________] (Facsimile)
[________________________________] (Email)
Bar No. [________________________________]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Strike, together with all exhibits and attachments, upon all counsel of record and/or parties by the following method(s):

☐ CM/ECF Electronic Filing System, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record registered with the Court's electronic filing system

☐ United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to:

☐ Hand Delivery to:

☐ Overnight/Express Delivery Service to:

☐ Facsimile to:

☐ Email to:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

________________________________________
[________________________________]
Attorney for [________________________________]

EXHIBIT A

[Attach a copy of the Challenged Pleading with the specific paragraphs, allegations, or defenses to be stricken highlighted or identified.]

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

[________________________________]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[________________________________] DISTRICT OF [________________________________]

[________________________________],
Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. [________________________________]

[________________________________], Judge [________________________________]
Defendant(s).

ORDER GRANTING [MOVANT'S] MOTION TO STRIKE

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on [________________________________]'s Motion to Strike Portions of [________________________________]'s [Complaint / Answer / Counterclaim], and the Court having considered the motion, [any opposition thereto,] [any reply,] and being otherwise fully advised in the premises;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Motion to Strike is GRANTED [IN PART / IN FULL].

2. The following are hereby STRICKEN from [________________________________]'s [Complaint / Answer / Counterclaim] filed on [__/__/____]:

a. [Paragraph(s) / Affirmative Defense(s)] [________________________________];

b. [________________________________];

c. [________________________________].

3. [________________________________] shall file an amended [Complaint / Answer / Counterclaim] omitting the stricken material within [____] days of the date of this Order.

[ALTERNATIVE: The Clerk is directed to strike the identified material from the record.]

4. [The Motion to Strike is DENIED as to the following: [________________________________].]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: [__/__/____]

________________________________________
Hon. [________________________________]
United States District Judge / [State] Court Judge

JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NOTES

Federal Courts

• Rule 12(f) Timing: A party must move to strike before responding to the pleading or, if no response is allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading. The court may act on its own at any time.
• "Pleading" Limitation: Rule 12(f) applies only to "pleadings" as defined by Rule 7(a): complaints, answers, counterclaims, crossclaims, third-party complaints, and replies to answers. It does not apply to motions, briefs, declarations, or discovery responses. See Sidney-Vinstein, 697 F.2d at 885.
• Anti-SLAPP Motions: Some federal courts apply state anti-SLAPP statutes (which function similarly to motions to strike) in diversity cases. The circuit courts are split on this issue. See Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

California

• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 435-437: California's motion to strike provisions. Broader than FRCP 12(f) -- permits striking "irrelevant, false, or improper matter" and any pleading not drawn in conformity with the laws of the state, a court rule, or an order of the court.
• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP): California's anti-SLAPP statute provides a special motion to strike claims arising from protected speech or petitioning activity. This is a powerful tool with fee-shifting provisions and is commonly used.
• Timing: A motion to strike must be filed within the time allowed to respond to the challenged pleading. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 435(b)(1).

Texas

• Tex. R. Civ. P. 91: Permits a motion to strike insufficient or improper pleadings. Grounds include: the pleading is not drawn in conformity with the rules, or that scandalous, prejudicial, or irrelevant matter has been inserted.
• Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.003 (TCPA): The Texas Citizens Participation Act provides for a motion to dismiss (functionally similar to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike) for legal actions based on a party's exercise of free speech, right to petition, or right of association.
• Timing: Special exceptions under Texas practice should be filed before trial and heard before evidence is presented.

Florida

• Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(f): A party may move to strike any "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" from any pleading. Language closely parallels FRCP 12(f).
• Fla. Stat. § 768.295: Florida's Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) statute provides for a motion to dismiss (with fee-shifting) for suits arising from the exercise of free speech rights in connection with a public issue.
• Timing: The motion must be made before responding to the pleading or, if no response is permitted, within 20 days after service of the pleading.

New York

• N.Y. CPLR § 3024(b): A party may move to strike "any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a pleading." New York's standard is narrower than FRCP 12(f) and focuses on "scandalous or prejudicial" matter rather than the broader categories of redundant, immaterial, and impertinent.
• N.Y. CPLR § 3211(b): A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit. This is the functional equivalent of striking an insufficient defense in New York practice.
• N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 76-a (Anti-SLAPP): New York's anti-SLAPP statute, significantly amended in 2020, provides for a motion to dismiss actions involving public petition and participation, with fee-shifting.

PRACTICE TIPS

1. Motions to Strike Are Disfavored: Courts frequently deny motions to strike, particularly when the challenged material could become relevant as the case develops. File only when the material is clearly improper and will cause genuine prejudice.

2. Be Specific: Identify each paragraph, sentence, or defense to be stricken with precision. Vague requests to strike "certain allegations" will be denied.

3. Focus on Prejudice: Courts are most receptive to motions to strike when the movant demonstrates concrete prejudice, such as the need to conduct costly discovery on irrelevant issues or the risk of jury confusion.

4. Consider Alternatives: A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) may be more appropriate for legally insufficient claims. A motion in limine may be more effective for excluding prejudicial material from trial. A motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) may address confusing or ambiguous pleading.

5. Anti-SLAPP Statutes: In cases involving speech or petitioning activity, consider whether a state anti-SLAPP statute provides a more powerful procedural tool with fee-shifting provisions.

6. Affirmative Defense Specificity: The circuit courts are split on whether affirmative defenses must satisfy the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard. Research the applicable circuit law before arguing that boilerplate defenses should be stricken.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) - Motion to Strike
• A Primer on Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike - American Bar Association
• Motion to Strike - Legal Information Institute
• Motion to Strike Redundant or Immaterial Allegations - LegalHusk
• Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010)
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Full Text - December 2024)