Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs Ryan Friberg and Alexa Stanfill filed suit against CP Manufacturing, LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The defendant filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs' prayer for punitive damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), arguing that punitive damages are not recoverable as a matter of law and citing Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1479 n.34 (C.D. Cal. 1996), for the proposition that striking such a prayer is proper when damages are legally unavailable.
The plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the defendant replied. The court found the matter suitable for decision on the papers without oral argument. The central issue was whether a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is the appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge the legal recoverability of punitive damages at the pleading stage.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion to strike, holding that the defendant's reliance on Bureerong was misplaced because that decision was specifically abrogated by the Ninth Circuit in Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir. 2010). In Whittlestone, the Ninth Circuit held that Rule 12(f) does not authorize a district court to dismiss a claim for damages on the basis that it is precluded as a matter of law. The court agreed with Whittlestone's reasoning that a motion to strike used for this purpose is really an attempt to obtain dismissal or summary judgment, which are properly pursued under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56.
The court cited Soil Retention Prods., Inc. v. Brentwood Indus., Inc., 582 F. Supp. 3d 725, 738 (S.D. Cal. 2022), which stated that motions to strike claims for damages are not allowed at all under Whittlestone, and Shannon A. v. Anderson, 2012 WL 5398478 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012), which denied a similar motion even where the defendant simultaneously challenged the sufficiency of allegations supporting punitive damages. The court emphasized that plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages merely because they request them, and that the court will not submit the question to a trier of fact if the plaintiffs cannot prove entitlement at summary judgment or trial.
Key Takeaways
- A motion to strike under Rule 12(f) cannot be used to challenge the legal availability of punitive damages; such challenges must be brought under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56.
- The Ninth Circuit's decision in Whittlestone v. Handi-Craft Co. abrogated prior district court authority allowing motions to strike prayers for damages deemed legally unavailable.
- The inclusion of a prayer for punitive damages in a complaint does not entitle plaintiffs to recover them; the court will evaluate entitlement at later stages such as summary judgment or trial.
- District courts in the Ninth Circuit consistently follow Whittlestone in denying motions to strike punitive damages prayers, even when defendants simultaneously challenge the factual sufficiency of the allegations.
Why It Matters
This order reaffirms the procedural gatekeeping function of Rule 12(f) in the Ninth Circuit, clarifying that it is limited to striking redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter—not to resolving the legal viability of damage claims. By denying the motion, the court preserves the plaintiffs' punitive damages claim for resolution on the merits through appropriate procedural vehicles, ensuring that defendants cannot prematurely eliminate damage claims via an improper procedural shortcut.
The decision aligns with a broader trend in federal practice of limiting the use of motions to strike for substantive challenges. It also serves as a reminder that the mere inclusion of a punitive damages prayer does not guarantee recovery, as the court retains authority to withhold the question from the trier of fact if the plaintiffs fail to establish entitlement at summary judgment or trial.