After a defendant succeeded on a Motion for a More Definite Statement, a plaintiff added more detail to the claims that had been dismissed. The defendant responded to the beefed up allegations with a Motion to Strike.
Is that a proper use of a Motion to Strike? Yes, said Judge McGuire last week in an Order in Progress Point One-B Condominium Association, Inc. v. Progress Point One Property Owners Association, Inc., 2015 NCBC 54, given the nature of the previous dismissal.
You may be surprised at that conclusion, given that a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) "is generally viewed as the proper means to challenge the sufficiency of a plaintiff's pleading, not a motion to strike." Order ¶14. Motions to strike, under Rule 12(f), are reserved for challenging "any redundant, irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."
The unusual circumstance of this case was that Judge McGuire had dismissed a number of the repleaded claims in a previous decision granting a Motion for a More Definite Statement (2015 NCBC 20). But he had not said that the dismissal was "with prejudice." That lack of reference to the quality of the dismissal didn't make a difference, because Rule 41(b) says that "all dismissals, including those under Rule 12(b)(6) operate as an adjudication upon the merits unless the trial court specifies that the dismissal is without prejudice." Order ¶9 (quoting Johnson v. Bellinger, 86 N.C. App. 1, 8 (1987).
A Motion to Strike is appropriate "where a party attempts to re-allege claims that have been previously dismissed by the court." Order ¶9.
So if you are dealing with an adversary who refuses to concede that some of its claims were dismissed and insists on going forward with them, a Motion to Strike is completely warranted.