United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill, Chief U.S. District Court Judge.
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his
Complaint (Dkt. 14), and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the Second Cause of Action (Dkt. 9) and Motion to Strike
(Dkt. 10). The motions are fully briefed, and the Court finds
these matters appropriate for decision without oral argument.
For the reasons described below, the Court will grant
Plaintiff's motion to amend, and deny Defendant's
motions as moot.
Complaint alleges violations of the Age Discrimination and
Employment Act (“ADEA”), the Older Workers
Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), the Americans
with Disabilities Act as amended (“ADA-AA”), and
the Idaho Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), as well as
other state law claims. Compl. ¶1, Dkt 1. On
January 17, 2018, Defendant timely filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action, Motion to
Dismiss, Dkt. 9, and a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
claims for punitive damages under Idaho state law, Motion
to Strike, Dkt. 10. Defendant filed an Answer on January
18, 2018. Answer, Dkt. 12.
February 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his
Complaint. Motion to Amend, Dkt. 14. Plaintiff
agreed to remove the second cause of action, and to strike
his claims for punitive damages under Idaho law. See
Pl.'s Br., Dkt, 14-1. Defendant objected, and the
parties briefed all three motions.
party may amend its pleadings once as a matter of course
within . . . 21 days after service of a responsive pleading
or . . . motion under Rule 12(b).” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(1)(B). Otherwise, a party may amend its pleading with
the consent of the other party or with leave from the court.
Id. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.” Id.
motion by a party, “the court may strike from a
pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” Id. 12(f). Motions to
strike are “disfavored” because they are often
“sought by the movant simply as a dilatory or harassing
tactic.” 5C Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller.
Federal Practice & Procedure, § 1380 (3d
Idaho law, “no claim for damages shall be filed
containing a prayer for relief seeking punitive
damages.” Idaho Code § 6-1604(2). Instead,
“a party may, pursuant to a pretrial motion and after
hearing before the court, amend the pleadings to include a
prayer for relief seeking punitive damages.”
Motion to Strike
Complaint contains a prayer for relief seeking punitive and
liquidated damages. See Compl. at 12. Defendant
filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's claims for punitive
damages under Idaho law, pursuant to Idaho Code §
6-1604(2). See Motion to Strike, Dkt. 10. As
indicated by the filing of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
and his proposed First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has
agreed only to pursue punitive damages under federal law at
this stage. See Pl.'s Br. at 2, Dkt. 14-1;
Proposed Am. Compl. at 12, Dkt. 14-3. Defendant does
not object. Def.'s Reply at 2-3, Dkt. 19. As
such, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion as to
punitive damages, and will deny Defendant's Motion to
Strike as moot.
Motion to Dismiss ...