United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

American Tugs, Incorporated, 

Plaintiff,

v.

3HD Supply, LLC, Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-23095-Civ-Scola

In Admiralty

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and to Strike

Plaintiff American Tugs, Incorporated, complains Defendant 3HD Supply, 

LLC, breached the parties’ contract by failing to pay amounts due both for work 

performed and for various expenses and by failing to provide proper termination 

notice. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) American Tugs also sought recovery from two 

individual Defendants, Humberto Diaz and Soraya Valero, alleging purported 

causes of action against them for “piercing the corporate veil.” American Tugs 

has since voluntarily dismissed this action as to those individual defendants 

(Order, ECF No. 18), however, and so the Court denies their motion to dismiss as 

moot. At the same time, 3HD, now the only remaining defendant, asks the Court 

to strike portions of the complaint, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), 

contending American Tugs’ recitation of the history of prior litigation between the 

parties is immaterial and impertinent. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss and Strike, ECF 

No. 15.) American Tugs opposes 3HD’s motion to strike, submitting the 

procedural history of the New York litigation is directly relevant to American 

Tugs’ claim for prejudgment interest. (Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 16.) 3HD did not reply 

to American Tugs’ response and the time to do so has passed. The Court is not 

persuaded by 3HD’s motion that the procedural history of the New York 

litigation should be struck from the complaint and, therefore, denies the motion 

to strike.

Under Rule 12(f), a court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient 

defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(f). “A motion to strike is intended to clean up the pleadings, 

removing irrelevant or otherwise confusing materials.” Williams v. Delray Auto 

Mall, Inc., 289 F.R.D. 697, 699 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (Graham, J.). District courts have 

“broad discretion in considering a motion to strike under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(f).” Morrison v. Exec. Aircraft Refinishing, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1317–

18 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (Ryskamp, J.) Despite this discretion, “[a] motion to strike is 

a drastic remedy, which is disfavored by the courts and will be usually denied 

Case 1:20-cv-23095-RNS Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2021 Page 1 of 2
unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may 

cause prejudice to one of the parties.” JazAtlanta 519 LLC v. Beazley 

Underwriting, Ltd., 2018 WL 4743634, *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2018) (Bloom, J.) 

(quoting Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cty., Fla, 306 F.2d 862, 

868 (5th Cir. 1962)). 

Here, American Tugs seeks to recover prejudgment interest as part of its 

damages. (Compl. at 8.) To that end, American Tugs contends, and 3HD does not 

dispute, that among the factors that might serve as a basis for a court to deny 

prejudgment interest is a plaintiff’s delay in bringing suit. (Pl.’s Resp. at 3; see 

Mecom v. Levingston Shipbuilding Co., 622 F.2d 1209, 1217 (5th Cir. 1980)

(recognizing a “delay in bringing suit” as “an adequate basis” upon which a court 

may base a decision to deny prejudgment interest in an admiralty case).)

American Tugs’ recitation of the procedural history of its dismissed New York 

case, against the same defendant, then, is directly related to an issue raised in 

this case: if true, the allegations could demonstrate that, to the extent American 

Tugs’ prosecution of this case has been delayed, that delay, at least in part, may 

be attributable to 3HD. Accordingly, the Court finds, contrary to 3HD’s 

contention, that American Tugs’ allegations regarding what 3HD refers to as an 

“improperly commenced . . . action against the defendants in the Southern 

District of New York,” is not immaterial or impertinent. 

Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the Court denies 3HD’s motion, in 

part, as to the motion to strike, and denies it as moot, in part, as to the motion 

to dismiss the individual defendants (ECF No. 15). 

3HD must file its answer to the complaint on or before March 26, 2021.

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on March 19, 2021.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-23095-RNS Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2021 Page 2 of 2