United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. James U.S. Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Strike Certain Allegations from Plaintiffs' Complaint
(ECF No. 6). In their motion, Defendants move pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) to strike eight paragraphs from
Plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds the allegations in
those paragraphs are immaterial, impertinent, and/or
scandalous, and are needlessly and unduly prejudicial to
Defendants. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion but
suggest their greatest interest is in being permitted to
argue and present evidence at trial in support of the
challenged allegations. Upon consideration of the matter, the
Court concludes that the motion should be denied.
April 5, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their complaint alleging one
count of violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act and
one count of fraud/fraud by silence/fraudulent
misrepresentation. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege they
purchased a travel trailer from Defendants that had been
declared salvage in another state, and that Defendants knew
the salvage history but sold the trailer to Plaintiffs
without disclosing that history. Plaintiffs further allege
that Defendants have engaged in a pattern of unconscionable
conduct by concealing the salvage history of travel trailers
they sold to other consumers.
8, 2019, Defendants filed a joint answer. Later that day,
they filed their motion to strike and a memorandum in
support,  seeking to strike certain allegations in
Plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds they violate Rule
12(f). Defendants address the offending allegations in three
Defendants object that paragraphs 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs'
complaint are irrelevant and impertinent to the issue in this
case and inherently and severely prejudicial to Defendants.
Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that
“[f]or years, Central RV, Inc. has abused the laws of
the state of Kansas in order to wash salvaged titles and
re-sell them to unsuspecting customers.” Paragraph 2
alleges that “[i]n fact, Central RV's pattern and
practice of washing titles in the state of Kansas in order to
pass them off to consumers without a ‘salvage'
brand led the Kansas legislature to amend existing laws in
2016 to specifically address this issue.”
Defendants object that paragraphs 15 and 17 of
Plaintiffs' complaint are prejudicial, irrelevant,
immaterial, and would be inadmissible hearsay. Paragraph 15
alleges as follows:
On or about January 22, 2016, Central RV applied for a Kansas
title, knowing that at the time Kansas could not issue a
title with a salvage (or previously salvage) brand. Central
RV knew that the Kansas title would come back washed clean of
the prior salvage brand.
Paragraph 17 alleges as follows:
This is not because no brand was merited-it surely was-but
because Kansas law at the time did not permit the Kansas
Department of Revenue to issue the applicable
salvage/previously salvage brand for travel trailers such as
the Key Largo. That law has since been changed, at least in
part because of Central RV.
Defendants contend that Paragraphs 35, 36, 38 and 39 contain
irrelevant, impertinent, scandalous and severely prejudicial
allegations. Those paragraphs appear in a section of the
complaint titled “Pattern and Practice.” In
Paragraph 35, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have a
history of concealing the salvage history of travel trailers.
Providing an example of that allegation, Paragraph 36 states
that “[f]or instance, in Todd Morgan v.
Central RV, Inc. (D. Kan. 17-2300-JPO), the
jury unanimously found Central RV to have committed virtually
identical acts and claims as are alleged here (specifically,
KCPA and fraud by silence). That jury also unanimously found
punitive damages were merited.” Plaintiffs assert in
Paragraph 38 that “[u]pon information and belief,
Defendants concealed the salvage history of travel trailers
from dozens, if not hundreds, of other consumers dating back
to at least 2013.” In Paragraph 39, Plaintiffs allege
that “the Kansas Attorney General has recently brought
suit against Central RV (and/or Nick Ford) for essentially
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “[t]he
court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or
any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” Motions to strike generally are
disfavored. For that reason, a court “should
decline to strike material from a pleading unless that
material has no possible relation to the controversy and may
prejudice the opposing party.” If the record suggests any
doubt whether under any contingency a challenged matter may
raise an issue, the court should deny the motion, and
evidentiary facts that help ...