IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RONALD AND DARLA HANSELMAN, :

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS :

CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF : 4:05-CV-1834

TIMOTHY L. HANSELMAN, :

:

Plaintiffs, :

: (Judge McClure)

v. :

:

STEPHEN J. OLSEN, :

CARY’S TRUCKING, INC., and :

TERRY THIBODEAUX, :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

January 9, 2006

BACKGROUND:

This is a diversity action arising from a series of motor vehicle accidents on

Interstate 80 in Clinton County, Pennsylvania on January 23, 2005. The plaintiffs

are the parents of Timothy J. Hanselman, who died as a result of injuries sustained

while he was attempting to render assistance to a vehicle involved in an unrelated

accident. The plaintiffs aver that while Hanselman was walking on the shoulder of

the interstate towards a vehicle that had spun off the road and landed on its roof, he

was struck by a vehicle driven by Stephen J. Olsen. 

Case 4:05-cv-01834-SHR Document 12 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 4
2

The action was initiated with the filing of a complaint on September 23, 2005,

and an amended complaint was filed on October 6, 2005. Named as defendants

are Stephen J. Olsen, driver of the vehicle that struck Hanselman; Terry

Thibodeaux, a truck driver whose negligence it is alleged caused Olsen to lose

control of his vehicle; and Cary’s Trucking, Inc., Thibodeaux’s employer. 

Presently before the court is a motion by defendants Cary’s Trucking and

Thibodeaux (“moving defendants”) to strike the word “recklessness” and any claim

for punitive damages from the amended complaint. For the following reasons, the

motion will be denied.

ANALYSIS: 

Moving defendants argue that because there are “no factual allegations to

show what conduct [Thibodeaux] engaged in that was outrageous . . . . Plaintiffs’

claim that Defendant Thibodeaux acted recklessly and thus entitles Plaintiff to

obtain punitive damages is insufficient as a matter of law and should be stricken

from the Amended Complaint.” (Rec. Doc. No. 9-1, at 4.) Plaintiffs respond by

explicitly and repeatedly stating that they do not seek punitive damages, and by

emphasizing that the motion to strike does not meet the standard set forth in

Case 4:05-cv-01834-SHR Document 12 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 4
1Moving defendants note that the case is before this court pursuant to our

diversity jurisdiction, and that we therefore apply the substantive law of the state

whose laws govern the action. Robertson v. Allied Signal, Inc., 914 F.2d 360, 378

(3d Cir. 1990) (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)). 

Nevertheless, we will follow a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure when it controls the

point in dispute. Justofin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 517, 522 (3d Cir. 2004)

(citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 473-74 (1965)). “When the Federal Rule

speaks to the point in dispute and is valid, it is controlling, and we need not pay any

regard to state provisions, regardless whether they are in conflict with the Federal

Rule.” Id. (quoting 19 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H.

Cooper, Fed. Prac. and Pro. § 4508 (2d ed. 1996)).

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).1 

Under Rule 12(f), “the court may order stricken from any pleading any

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

matter.” While we possess “considerable discretion in disposing of a motion to

strike under Rule 12(f),” such motions are “not favored and usually will be denied

unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause

prejudice to one of the parties, or if the allegations confuse the issues.” Krisa v.

Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 109 F. Supp. 2d 316, (M.D. Pa. 2000) (Vanaskie, C.J.)

(quotations and citations omitted). The moving defendants make no argument that

the word “reckless” is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The

moving defendants likewise did not argue that the word “reckless” prejudices them

Case 4:05-cv-01834-SHR Document 12 Filed 01/09/06 Page 3 of 4
2

In their motion, moving defendants state that the plaintiffs’ use of the words

“reckless” and “wanton” in the complaint are prejudicial under the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court decision in Connor v. Allegheny Gen. Hosp., 461 A.2d 600 (Pa.

1983), which moving defendants claim “attached considerable significance to

innocuous and/or boiler plate provisions, such as the vague and unspecified

allegations of ‘reckless’ found in Plaintiff’s Complaint.” (Rec. Doc. No. 8-1, at 5.) 

Moving defendants do not address this contention in their supporting brief. We do

not find this unsubstantiated argument to be persuasive. 

4

or confuses the issues.2 

Because the plaintiffs do not seek punitive damages in the amended

complaint, and the motion to strike does not meet the standard set in Federal Rule

12(f), the motion will be denied.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The motion to strike is denied. (Rec. Doc. No. 8-1.)

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge 

Case 4:05-cv-01834-SHR Document 12 Filed 01/09/06 Page 4 of 4