Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00134/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00134-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Citizenship

---

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

Seaboard Surety Company, a New York

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

Grupo México, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican

corporation, and DOES I-CI,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-0134-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff Seaboard Surety Company’s (Seaboard) Motion

to Strike the Renewed Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Grupo México, S.A.B de C.V.

(Grupo México) and Motion for an Order Requiring Defendant Grupo México to File an

Answer to the Amended Complaint (Doc. 104). After careful consideration, the Court finds the

following.

Motion to Strike

It is well established in the Ninth Circuit that a motion to strike filed pursuant to Rule

12(f) permits the Court to strike pleadings, not motions. See Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co.,

697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Under the express language of the rule, only pleadings are

subject to motions to strike.”) It is undisputed that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 94) that

Seaboard seeks to have struck by order of this Court is not a pleading, rather it is a motion under

the Federal Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 (distinguishing between pleadings and motions).

Case 2:06-cv-00134-SMM Document 113 Filed 09/27/07 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

1

The Court did so because in lieu of filing a Response to the Motion to Dismiss,

Seaboard filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, based also on the issue of subject matter

jurisdiction. The Court found that at the time, it was not necessary to have pending duplicative

motions. 

2

Even in Seaboard’s motion for summary judgment, the only issue raised is whether there

is a ripe case or controversy.

- 2 -

Therefore, because 12(f) governs pleadings and not motions, Plaintiff is seeking relief that the

Court is not permitted to grant under the Federal Rules, and consequently, the motion is denied.

Motion to Require Grupo México to File an Answer

On July 16, 2007, this Court entered an Order denying as moot Grupo México’s initial

Motion to Dismiss.1 However, as counsel for Grupo correctly pointed out, the Court’s denial

as moot of Grupo México’s initial motion to dismiss does not forever bar Grupo México from

raising the issue of the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(h) provides that lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a defense that can never be

waived. In the interest of clarification, pursuant to the Court’s previous order, the issue of

subject matter jurisdiction was not moot, because subject matter jurisdiction can never be

moot under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It was the motion itself that was rendered

moot, strictly for procedural purposes. Denial of Grupo México’s initial motion as moot neither

extinguishes the Court’s duty to consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction nor does it

extinguish Grupo México’s right to raise the issue again. Furthermore, the Court finds that

Grupo México has no obligation to answer the complaint because the issue of the Court’s

subject matter jurisdiction remains undecided.2

 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Seaboard’s Motion to Strike Grupo México’s

Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 104).

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00134-SMM Document 113 Filed 09/27/07 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Seaboard’s Motion for an Order Requiring

Grupo México to File an Answer to the Amended Complaint (Doc. 104). 

DATED this 26th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00134-SMM Document 113 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 3