Gibson Brands, Inc. v. Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc. et al, No. 4:2019cv00358 - Document 135 (E.D. Tex. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Gibson Brands, Inc.'s Affirmative Defenses of Laches and Estoppel (Dkt. # 56 ) is hereby DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 6/24/2020. (rpc, )

Download PDF
Gibson Brands, Inc. v. Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc. et al Doc. 135 Case 4:19-cv-00358-ALM Document 135 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3009 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION GIBSON BRANDS, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, v. ARMADILLO DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISES, INC.; CONCORDIA INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-00358-ALM Judge Mazzant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Gibson Brands, Inc.’s Affirmative Defenses of Laches and Estoppel (Dkt. #56). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion should be DENIED as moot. LEGAL STANDARD Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides “the court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f). The Court has the authority to act on its own or pursuant to a “motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(1–2). The Fifth Circuit has stated that motions to strike are generally disfavored. See Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:19-cv-00358-ALM Document 135 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3010 Shipyards, 677 F.2d 1045, 1058 (5th Cir. 1982). They are viewed with disfavor and infrequently granted, both because striking portions of pleadings is a drastic remedy and because it is often sought by a movant simply as a dilatory tactic. See Bailey Lumber & Supply Co. v. GeorgiaPacific Corp., 2010 WL 1141133, at *4–5 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 19, 2010) (citing FDIC v. Niblo, 821 F. Supp. 441 (N.D. Tex. 1993)). Although motions to strike are disfavored and infrequently granted, striking certain allegations can be appropriate when they have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties. Jefferson Parish Consol. Garbage Dist. No. 1 v. Waste Mgmt. of La., 2010 WL 1731204, at *5 (E.D. La. Apr. 28, 2010) (citing Boreri v. Fiat S.p.A., 763 F.2d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 1985); Berry v. Lee, 428 F. Supp. 2d 546, 563 (N.D. Tex. 2006); McInerney v. Moyer Lumber & Hardware, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 393, 401 (E.D. Pa. 2002)). The Court possesses considerable discretion in ruling on a motion to strike. Bailey, 2010 WL 1141133, at *4–5 (citing Niblo, 821 F. Supp. at 449). ANALYSIS After reviewing the current complaint, the motion to strike, the response, the reply, and the sur-reply, the Court finds that Armadillo’s Motion is moot given the superseding answer which Gibson filed on December 30, 2019 (Dkt. #85). Any argument regarding Gibson’s defenses of laches and estoppel must address Gibson’s current Answer. 2 Case 4:19-cv-00358-ALM Document 135 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3011 CONCLUSION . It is therefore ORDERED that Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Gibson Brands, Inc.’s Affirmative Defenses of Laches and Estoppel (Dkt. #56) is hereby DENIED as moot. SIGNED this 24th day of June, 2020. ___________________________________ AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.