Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Javier Torres, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Terry Goddard, Attorney General of

Arizona, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2482-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

(Dkt. 81). Defendants oppose this motion and move to strike footnote six of the proposed

Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 87). As described below, the Court finds that pleadings

ought not contain footnotes. The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Leave with

permission to refile in accordance with the rules and standards that govern pleadings. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court “may order stricken from any pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, 

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Motions to strike are generally

regarded with disfavor, but are proper when a defense is insufficient as a matter of law.

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1057

(5th Cir. 1982). “The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time

and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues

prior to trial.” Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). A

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 93 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

matter is immaterial if it “has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or

the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993),

rev’d on other grounds by Fogerty v. Fantasy Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994). A matter is

impertinent if it consists of statements that do not pertain and are not necessary to the issues

in question. Id. The moving party need not show that the material is prejudicial if granting

the motion would streamline the ultimate resolution of the action. Id. at 1528.

DISCUSSION

Defendants assert that footnote six should be stricken because it is “not an operative

fact related to any element of the Plaintiffs’ claims” and is therefore immaterial and

impertinent. (Defs.’ Resp. 13.) The Court finds that by its very nature, allegations contained

in a footnote have “no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief.” Fogerty,

984 F.2d at 1527. Pleadings must set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). If an allegation bears an

essential or important relationship to the claim for relief, it warrants inclusion in the body of

the pleading. If it does not bear such a relationship, it does not belong in the pleading,

though it may be relevant to subsequent filings. Therefore the Court finds Defendants’

Motion to Strike to be meritorious.

Furthermore, the Court finds that this reasoning applies not only to footnote six, but

extends to all footnotes in the proposed Second Amended Complaint. The Court will

therefore deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, and deny

Defendants’ Motion to Strike as moot. Plaintiffs may refile a motion for leave to file a

Second Amended Complaint that does not contain footnotes. The Court notes in this regard

that Plaintiffs must comply with Local Rule 15.1 by lodging an original of the proposed

amended pleading separate from their motion to amend. See LRCiv 15.1(b) (“The original

must not be physically attached or made an exhibit to a motion to amend . . . .”). Defendants

may then refile their opposition, if any, to the proposed Second Amended Complaint, which

the Court will then address.

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 93 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint (Dkt. 81). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendants’ Motion to Strike

footnote six (Dkt. 87).

DATED this 22nd day of April, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 93 Filed 04/22/08 Page 3 of 3