Patricia Benjamin v. Esso Standard Oil co PR Medical Insurance Aig Life Insurance CO-MCS et al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 PATRICIA BENJAMIN, court appointed 5 guardian of the Estate of RONALD 5 WILLIAMS, a minor, 5 1:08-cv-101 5 Plaintiff, 5 v. 5 5 ESSO STANDARD OIL CO., PR MEDICAL 5 INSURANCE AIG LIFE INSURANCE CO.– 5 MCS, and ESSO STANDARD OIL 5 COMPANY (PUERTO RICO), 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Kenth W. Rogers, Esq. Charles E. Engemean, Esq. Wilfredo A. Geigel, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’ Answer (Docket No. 39). Defendants filed a response in opposition to said motion. The time for filing a reply has expired. Plaintiff seeks to strike certain affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants in their Answer, claiming that such defenses are “legally insufficient.” Motion at 2. It is well-established that Case: 3:09-cv-00118-JRS-GWB Document #: 75 Filed: 06/04/09 Page 1 of 3 Benjamin v. Esso Standard Oil Co., P.R. Medical Ins. AIG Life Ins. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_09-cv-00118/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_09-cv-00118-3.pdf
SHA-256 2f8d31412c9746bd7becbc5eb4b31d68dc9de8c71db13f3f7ff0dc50da1100f6
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-2f8d31412c97
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 PATRICIA BENJAMIN, court appointed 5 guardian of the Estate of RONALD 5 WILLIAMS, a minor, 5 1:08-cv-101 5 Plaintiff, 5 v. 5 5 ESSO STANDARD OIL CO., PR MEDICAL 5 INSURANCE AIG LIFE INSURANCE CO.– 5 MCS, and ESSO STANDARD OIL 5 COMPANY (PUERTO RICO), 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Kenth W. Rogers, Esq. Charles E. Engemean, Esq. Wilfredo A. Geigel, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’ Answer (Docket No. 39). Defendants filed a response in opposition to said motion. The time for filing a reply has expired. Plaintiff seeks to strike certain affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants in their Answer, claiming that such defenses are “legally insufficient.” Motion at 2. It is well-established that Case: 3:09-cv-00118-JRS-GWB Document #: 75 Filed: 06/04/09 Page 1 of 3 Benjamin v. Esso Standard Oil Co., P.R. Medical Ins. AIG Life Ins. Co.–MCS 1:08-cv-101 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike “[b]ecause of the drastic nature of the remedy . . . motions to strike are usually ‘viewed with disfavor’ and will generally ‘be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties, or if the allegations confuse the issues.’” (Garlanger v. Verbeke, 223 F. Supp. 2d 596, 609 (D.N.J. 2002); see also J. & A. Realty v. City of Asbury Park, 763 F. Supp. 85, 87 (D.N.J. 1991) (“Rule 12(f) motions are disfavored, especially in the absence of prejudice”) (citing Abrams v. Lightolier, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 509, 511 (D.N.J. 1988))) Amentler v. 69 Main Street, LLC, Civil Action No. 08-0351 (FLW), 2008 WL 4149125 at *1 (D.N.J. September 2, 2008) (slip copy). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that “[a] court should not grant a motion to strike a defense unless the insufficiency of the defense is ‘clearly apparent.’” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 789 F.2d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 505 U.S. 504, 112 S. Ct. 2608, 120 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1992) (citations omitted). Having reviewed the affirmative defenses at issue and the factual record before it, the Court finds that none of the affirmative defenses at issue can be said to have “no possible relation” to Plaintiff’s claims. The Court further finds that none of the affirmative defenses at issue cause prejudice to any party, nor do any confuse the issues. In addition, the Court finds that none of the challenged affirmative defenses are clearly insufficient nor do they contain any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Case: 3:09-cv-00118-JRS-GWB Document #: 75 Filed: 06/04/09 Page 2 of 3 Benjamin v. Esso Standard Oil Co., P.R. Medical Ins. AIG Life Ins. Co.–MCS 1:08-cv-101 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants’ Answer (Docket No. 39) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: June 4, 2009 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 3:09-cv-00118-JRS-GWB Document #: 75 Filed: 06/04/09 Page 3 of 3