This is the first in a three part series of articles discussing the several varieties of motions to strike available during the litigation of Florida civil cases.
This article addresses motions to strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(f).
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(f) allows a party in a civil matter to file a motion to strike four categories of material from pleadings. Specifically, it provides that “[a] party may move to strike or the court may strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from any pleading at any time.” See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(f).
Importantly, Rule 1.140(f) only applies to pleadings. A “pleading” is defined as:
See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100(a). In addition, “[i]f an answer or third-party answer contains an affirmative defense and the opposing party seeks to avoid it, the opposing party must file a reply containing the avoidance.” Id. “No other pleadings will be allowed.” Id.
Consequently, Rule 1.140(f) does not apply to motions, affidavits, discovery responses, or other legal filings because they are not “pleadings.” See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100(b). Further, Rule 1.140(f) does not permit striking an entire pleading, only the offending portions of it. See Upland Dev. of Cent. Florida, Inc. v. Bridge, 910 So. 2d 942, 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
Additionally, Rule 1.140(f) does not apply to motions to strike legally insufficient defenses. Even though defenses are raised in pleadings, legally insufficient defenses are addressed by a separate section of Rule 1.140, which is the subject of the third article in this series. See Rule 1.140(b).
At the outset, courts addressing Rule 1.140(f) often lump “redundant, immaterial, and impertinent” together. However, some differentiation of these terms is possible.
Florida case law does not provide a clear definition of the term “redundant” as used by Rule 1.140(f). Nevertheless, what is “redundant” can prove obvious in some cases. If a pleading simply repeated the same sentence several dozen times, they would be ripe for a motion to strike redundant matter. More likely, a pleading will sloppily over-reincorporate allegations or incorporate one cause of action into subsequent unrelated ones.
In Varandoe v. Union Planters Mortg. Corp., 898 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), the Court considered a motion to strike redundant, immaterial matter, including surplus pleadings titled “Affidavit of Discharge,” “Bill of Exchange,” and “Bill of Acceptance.” Those terms have no meaning under Florida law so, not surprisingly, the trial court found them “illogical, incomprehensible, and immaterial” to the issues. Id. The Court agreed and affirmed the order striking the material under Rule 1.140(f). Id.
In Buckner v. Lower Fla. Keys Hosp. Dist., 403 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), the Court struck parts of a wordy pleading which conflated causes of action, had excessive allegations and exhibits, and contained scandalous and impertinent material. However, while two claims may appear redundant, in that they could lead to the same ultimate award, if the elements to prove each claim are distinct, similar claims are not necessarily redundant. See Dover v. Dover, 241 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
“Immaterial” means evidence “tending to prove some fact that is not properly at issue; lacking any logical connection with the consequential facts.” Immaterial, Black’s Law Dictionary 816 (9th ed. 2009). Similarly, “impertinent” matter has been defined as material in a pleading “that is not relevant to the action or defense.” Id. at 822. For example, it could include superfluous exhibits such as newspaper articles or other material comprised of hearsay or statements by nonparties incorporated to bolster a party’s allegations.
Whether an exhibit might prove admissible as evidence is distinguishable from whether the exhibit and its contents are material or pertinent to the pleading. For example, in Scott v. City of Venice, 167 So. 654, 654 (Fla. 1936), the Florida Supreme Court held that a 58-page exhibit—while potentially admissible as evidence—was not material and “contain[ed] much irrelevant matter.” As such, the trial court should have granted the motion to strike it. Id.
“Scandalous matters” would, for example, include bold allegations that a party violated criminal law. In Rice-Lamar v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 853 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the court reviewed scandalous and immaterial allegations regarding a violent outburst by a city employee. Evaluating the city’s motion to strike the allegations, the court looked for a “causal connection” between the plaintiff’s whistleblower-claims on a city’s discriminatory employment practices and the violent outburst. Id. at 1133–34. Finding none, the Court affirmed the trial court’s order striking any reference in the pleading to the violent outburst. Id.
A motion to strike a matter as redundant, immaterial, or scandalous should only be granted if the material is:
See Rice-Lamar, 853 So. 2d at 1133–34 (quotation omitted).
