DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
PATRICIA BENJAMIN, court appointed
5
guardian of the Estate of RONALD
5
WILLIAMS, a minor,
5
1:08-cv-101
5
Plaintiff,
5
v.
5
5
ESSO STANDARD OIL CO., PR MEDICAL
5
INSURANCE AIG LIFE INSURANCE CO.–
5
MCS, and ESSO STANDARD OIL
5
COMPANY (PUERTO RICO),
5
5
Defendants. 5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Kenth W. Rogers, Esq.
Charles E. Engemean, Esq.
Wilfredo A. Geigel, Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of
Defendants’ Answer (Docket No. 39).  Defendants filed a response in opposition to said
motion.  The time for filing a reply has expired.
Plaintiff seeks to strike certain affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants in their
Answer, claiming that such defenses are “legally insufficient.”  Motion at 2.
It is well-established that
Case: 3:09-cv-00118-JRS-GWB   Document #: 75   Filed: 06/04/09   Page 1 of 3
Benjamin v. Esso Standard Oil Co., P.R. Medical Ins. AIG Life Ins. Co.–MCS
1:08-cv-101
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Page 2
“[b]ecause of the drastic nature of the remedy . . . motions to strike are
usually ‘viewed with disfavor’ and will generally ‘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.’”
(Garlanger v. Verbeke, 223 F. Supp. 2d 596, 609 (D.N.J. 2002); see also J. & A.
Realty v. City of Asbury Park, 763 F. Supp. 85, 87 (D.N.J. 1991) (“Rule 12(f)
motions are disfavored, especially in the absence of prejudice”) (citing 
Abrams v. Lightolier, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 509, 511 (D.N.J. 1988)))
Amentler v. 69 Main Street, LLC, Civil Action No. 08-0351 (FLW), 2008 WL 4149125 at *1
(D.N.J. September 2, 2008) (slip copy).  The United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has held that “[a] court should not grant a motion to strike a defense unless the
insufficiency of the defense is ‘clearly apparent.’”  Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 789 F.2d
181, 188 (3d Cir. 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 505 U.S. 504, 112 S. Ct. 2608, 120 L. Ed. 2d 407
(1992) (citations omitted).
Having reviewed the affirmative defenses at issue and the factual record before it,
the Court finds that none of the affirmative defenses at issue can be said to have “no
possible relation” to Plaintiff’s claims.  The Court further finds that none of the affirmative
defenses at issue cause prejudice to any party, nor do any confuse the issues.  In addition,
the Court finds that none of the challenged affirmative defenses are clearly insufficient nor
do they contain any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.
Case: 3:09-cv-00118-JRS-GWB   Document #: 75   Filed: 06/04/09   Page 2 of 3
Benjamin v. Esso Standard Oil Co., P.R. Medical Ins. AIG Life Ins. Co.–MCS
1:08-cv-101
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Page 3
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions
of Defendants’ Answer (Docket No. 39) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: June 4, 2009
/s/ George W. Cannon, Jr.                           
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.                       
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 3:09-cv-00118-JRS-GWB   Document #: 75   Filed: 06/04/09   Page 3 of 3