IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
CARRIER INTERAMERICA
CORPORATION,
    
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2010-69
v.
THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN
ISLANDS, THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Defendants.
ORDER
 Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’
answer.  Plaintiff moves to strike the answer as not having been
filed in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and it
seeks to have the allegations in the complaint deemed admitted. 
Plaintiff argues that some of defendants’ responses are vague,
false, and inconsistent, and contends therefore that defendants
have failed in their obligation to plead with honesty and to
conduct a reasonable investigation into the allegations contained
in the complaint. 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) governs motions to
strike.  Rule 12(f) provides that on motion of a party made either
before responding to the pleading or, if response is not allowed,
within 21 days after being served with the pleading, a court may
strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.  Defendants answered
Case: 3:10-cv-00069-CVG-RM   Document #: 46   Filed: 07/13/11   Page 1 of 3
Carrier Interamerica Corporation v. The United States Virgin
Islands, et al.
Civil No. 2010-69
Page 2 of 3
the complaint on September 8, 2010, and plaintiff did not file its
motion to strike until April 7, 2011, well beyond the 21 days
prescribed in the Rule.  As such, the motion is untimely.
Even if, as plaintiff argues, the Court could determine this
issue without regard to the time limit in the Rule, the motion
still must be denied.  Motions to strike are generally disfavored,
and doubts should be resolved in favor of denying the motion. 
1
“Mere redundancy, immateriality, impertinence, or scandalousness is
not sufficient to justify striking an allegation.”  A motion to
2
strike is also viewed as a “‘time waster’”; the motion will be
denied unless the allegedly offending pleading “bears no possible
relation to the dispute or could confuse the issues.”  Moreover,
3
to “prevail on a motion to strike, the moving party must
demonstrate that the challenged allegations are so unrelated to the 
  Flanagan v. Wyndham International, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist
1
LEXIS 24211, at *3-4 (D.V.I. April 21, 2003)(citing Larsen v.
Pennsylvania, 955 F. Supp. 1549, 1582 (M.D. Pa. 1997) and Krisa
v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society, 109 F. Supp. 2d 316, 319
(M.D. Pa. 2000)); see also Michael v. McIntosh, 2007 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 78720 (D.V.I. Oct. 9, 2007)
  2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24211, at *4 (citations omitted).
2
  Id. (citations omitted).
3
Case: 3:10-cv-00069-CVG-RM   Document #: 46   Filed: 07/13/11   Page 2 of 3
Carrier Interamerica Corporation v. The United States Virgin
Islands, et al.
Civil No. 2010-69
Page 3 of 3
plaintiff’s claims as to be ‘unworthy of any consideration and that
their presence in the pleading will be prejudicial.’”4
Here, defendants fairly met their obligations under Rule 8. 
Even so, plaintiff alleges that some of defendants’ responses are
vague, false, and inconsistent.  Plaintiff has not met his burden
of demonstrating that defendants’ responses are so unrelated to
plaintiff’s claims as to be unworthy of consideration, however, nor
has 
plaintiff 
established 
that 
defendants’ 
responses 
are
prejudicial to plaintiff.  In light of the foregoing, it is hereby 
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer
is DENIED.
S\____________________________
RUTH MILLER
United States Magistrate Judge
  Id., at *3 (citing Wright and Miller, Federal Practice
4
and Procedure, Civil 2d § 1380).
Case: 3:10-cv-00069-CVG-RM   Document #: 46   Filed: 07/13/11   Page 3 of 3