Summary
denying motion to strike offending allegations because case would be tried before the court and therefore no prejudice would result
Summary of this case from In re Food Management Group, Llc.Opinion
Action by employee to recover money damages and reform or rescind employment contract. The employer moved to strike allegations in the complaint and paragraph of prayer for relief. The District Court, Zampano, J., held that portions of complaint referring to employment as involuntary servitude and slavery and characterizing certain acts as unfair, unreasonable, unconscionable, inequitable, and confiscatory, would not be stricken in view of facts that case would be tried to court rather than jury, that no prejudice would result to employer if the allegedly offending allegations were permitted to remain in complaint, and that employee might be attempting to advance cause of action based on constitutional proscription of slavery.
Motion denied.
Ivan M. Schaffel, New Haven, Conn., for plaintiff.
Morris Tyler, Gumbart, Corbin, Tyler & Cooper, New Haven, Conn., for defendant.
ZAMPANO, District Judge.
The plaintiff brings this action in equity to recover money damages and to reform or rescind an employment contract he entered into with the defendant on January 1, 1962.
Defendant, pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., moves to strike all or part of the allegations in paragraphs 11, 13 and 14 of the Complaint and paragraph I of the prayer for relief.
Paragraphs 11 and 13 refer to plaintiff's employment as ‘ involuntary servitude’ and ‘ slavery’ ; paragraph 14 characterizes certain acts as ‘ unfair, unreasonable, unconscionable, inequitable and confiscatory’ ; and paragraph I of the prayer for relief uses the terms ‘ unconscionable, unfair and inequitable’ .
The Complaint is not a model of simplicity and brevity. Portions of it abound in synonymical phraseology contrary to the dictates of concise and direct pleadings contemplated by the Federal Rules.
If the case were to be tried to a jury, this Court would have little hesitancy in requiring the plaintiff to redraft his Complaint, eliminating ad hominem characterizations and verbosity. In its present posture, however, the case will be tried to the Court. No prejudice will result to the defendant if the allegedly offending allegations are permitted to remain in the Complaint. Moreover, plaintiff, in his brief, informs the Court that ‘ The crux of this case is slavery. Slavery is the basis and substance of the claim herein.’ Perhaps plaintiff is attempting to advance some cause of action based on the constitutional proscription of slavery. Whether he is or not, and whether a contract service can be the subject of such a claim, will best be determined as the pleadings and discovery proceedings progress. At this stage of the case, these potentially distinct claims should not be foreclosed by a ruling that the plaintiff's terminology is redundant and impertinent.
Accordingly, the motion is denied.