Project Management Institute, Inc. v. Ireland, Civil Action No. 99-4891 (E.D. Pa. 4/11/2000)
| Decision Date | 11 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 99-4891. |
| Parties | PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, INC. and HAROLD REEVE, Plaintiffs, v. LEWIS R. IRELAND and LEWIS R. IRELAND & ASSOC., INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Lewis R. Ireland ("Ireland") is a former President of the Board of Directors of Project Management Institute, Inc. ("PMI"). While serving in that capacity, Ireland developed concerns about the quality of legal work being done by PMI counsel Richard A. Goldberg, Esq. ("Goldberg"). Ireland, feeling that his concerns were not being resolved satisfactorily, sent allegedly defamatory correspondence to other board members, including Harold Reeve ("Reeve"), Chair of PMI's board. When PMI threatened to remove Ireland from his position on the board and to revoke his membership, Ireland signed an agreement not to pursue his allegations further. He renewed his correspondence shortly thereafter, allegedly continuing to publish defamatory statements to and about Reeve, including statements to Reeve's employer and government agencies. Plaintiffs filed suit. Defendants responded by filing a motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f) to dismiss the action in part and to strike matter from the complaint. That motion, and plaintiffs' response thereto, is before the court. I will grant in part and deny in part the motion.
Taking the facts from plaintiffs'1 complaint and the exhibits attached thereto,2 the facts are the following.
PMI defines standards for project managers, certifies professional project managers, and offers educational programs. See Compl. 8 (Doc. No. 1). PMI is a non-profit professional association of which professionals may be members. See id. A board of directors governs PMI. See id. 10. In 1998, Ireland served as both President and Chair of the board, which entailed, among other things, review of "legal documents and letters issued by PMI." See id. 11. At all material times, Goldberg was serving as legal counsel to PMI. See id. 13 & 42. On December 28, 1998, Ireland wrote a letter directing PMI Executive Director Virgil Carter ("Carter") to terminate PMI's contract with Goldberg. See id. 24. The letter alleged four grounds for the action. See id. 25-33. The letter was sent to thirteen other individuals, each a past or present director of PMI. See id. 34. Plaintiffs allege that Ireland lacked the authority to issue the order. See id. 36-37. Ireland also communicated the substance of the letter to Reeve, as incoming Chair, by e-mail of January 1, 1999. See id. 39.
An Executive Committee met on January 14, 1999 to review the allegations. See id. 41. Finding the allegations without merit, the Executive Committee "voted to retain Attorney Goldberg and his law firm as PMI's General Counsel." See id. 42.
On January 19, 1999, Ireland circulated to the Executive Committee a second letter containing allegations of improper conduct by both Goldberg and Carter. See id. 44-45. The same allegations were communicated to the Executive Committee by Ireland in a February 1, 1999 e-mail. See id. 48. On March 13, 1999, Reeve and other board members informed Ireland "that if he did not agree to immediately halt his attacks on Messrs. Goldberg and Carter, the Board could seek to remove him as a member of the Board of Directors and revoke his membership in the association." See id. 51. In exchange for valid consideration, Ireland signed an "Agreement Not to Pursue" his allegations. See id. 52; id. Ex. I. On April 12, 1999, Ireland resigned voluntarily from the board. See id. 55.
On May 6, 1999, Reeve requested by letter that Ireland retract his allegations. See id. 56. On May 26, 1999, Ireland sent an e-mail to Reeve's employer charging Reeve with improper conduct and suggesting as well that Reeve's employer might be liable. See id. 57-58; id. Ex. K. On June 2, 1999, Ireland sent a letter to the vice president of human resources at Reeve's employer, renewing his questions and allegations as to Reeve. See id. 60; id. Ex. L. With the intent to harass and defame Reeve and PMI, Ireland submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Energy for records regarding Reeve. See id. 62.
On July 6, 1999, Ireland sent an e-mail to the PMI board in which he threatened to "continue to escalate these issues." See id. 64; id. Ex. M. On August 17, 1999, Ireland sent an e-mail to the board accusing "PMI of violating its bylaws and Pennsylvania law." See id. 65; id. Ex. N. On August 19, 1999, Ireland sent an e-mail to the vice chair of PMI's board accusing "Plaintiffs of `extortion' and [saying that] he had initiated a `criminal investigation' against Plaintiffs." See id. 66-67. On August 26, 1999, Ireland sent an e-mail to a PMI board member saying that "he had met with agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (`FBI')" and that he would "meet with them again if Plaintiffs failed to" do as he asked. See id. 69; id. Ex. P. Plaintiffs say that Ireland was "aided and encouraged in his efforts" by Lewis R. Ireland & Associates, Inc. ("Ireland Associates").
On September 30, 1999, plaintiffs filed a complaint in eight counts seeking legal and equitable relief from defendants.3 See Doc. No. 1. On November 23, 1999, defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) and to dismiss in part the action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Defs. Mot. to Strike and Mot. to Dismiss Pls. Compl. (Doc. No. 4) (hereafter "Defs. Mot."). Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion on December 15, 1999. See Pls. Resp. in Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. (Doc. No. 7) ). For the reasons which follow, I will grant in part and deny in part the Rule 12(f) motion. Also, I will grant in part and deny in part the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Plaintiffs move to strike both scandalous matter and the ad damnum clauses from the complaint.
Rule 12(f) permits a court to "order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Defendants move for the court to strike as scandalous allegations such as that characterizing Ireland's actions as "nothing more than a personal vendetta held by a delusional, paranoid and destructive person." See Defs. Mot. at 3 . Plaintiffs argue that defendants must identify the statements to be stricken, that the language is not scandalous, and that defendants have not demonstrated prejudice from the language of the complaint. See Pls. Resp. at 11-14. I will deny the motion for lack of prejudice.
A Rule 12(f) motion to strike matter from a pleading is disfavored generally. See, e.g., Miller v. Group Voyagers, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 164, 168 (E.D.Pa. 1996); North Penn Transfer, Inc., v. Victaulic Co. of Amer., 859 F. Supp. 154, 158 (E.D.Pa. 1994); Great West Life Assur. Co. v. Levithan, 834 F. Supp. 858, 864 (E.D.Pa. 1993); Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 1380 at 647 (2d ed. 1995) [hereafter "Fed. Prac. & P."]. For that reason, courts have required the moving party to demonstrate prejudice in order to justify an order to strike matter from a pleading. See, e.g., Miller, 912 F. Supp. at 168; North Penn Transfer, Inc., 859 F. Supp. at 158; Great West Life Assur. Co., 834 F. Supp. at 864; Fed. Prac. & P. 1382 at 682.
Defendants have not alleged any prejudice due to the cited language. Moreover, if the action proceeds to trial, the pleadings will not be presented to a jury. That being so, and because the court is able to limit its analysis to the the legally relevant allegations in the complaint, I conclude that defendants will suffer no prejudice from the language cited and I will deny the motion to strike scandalous matter. See Hanania v. Loren-Maltese, 56 F. Supp.2d 1010, 1019 (N.D.Ill. 1999); Fed. Prac. & P. 1382 at 715.
Pursuant to each of the eight counts in the complaint, plaintiffs request relief in the form of "compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of one million dollars ($1,000,000)." See, e.g., Compl. (c) following 131 at 32. Defendants argue that such demands are improper under Local Civil Rule 5.1.1, which provides:
No pleading asserting a claim for unliquidated damages shall contain any allegation as to the specific dollar amount claimed, but such pleadings shall contain allegations sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the Court, to reveal whether the case is or is not subject to arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2, and to specify the nature of the damages claimed.
See E.D. Pa. Loc.R. Civ. P. 5.1.1. Defendants argue that Local Civil Rule 5.1.1, in tandem with Federal Civil Rule 12(f), permits the court to strike the specific dollar amounts claimed. Plaintiffs respond that defendants' argument is "hyper-technical" and that defendants have not demonstrated prejudice from any specific claim. See Pls. Resp. at 14. Plaintiffs are wrong.
Courts in this district have enforced the requirement of Local Civil Rule 5.1.1. See, e.g., Pryor v. Mercy Med. Ctr., No. 99-0988, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16084, at *5 n. 3 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 19, 1999); Gallas v. Supreme Ct. of Pa., No. 96-6450, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6893, at *68 . Because Local Civil Rule 5.1.1 was enacted out of concern for the possibility of prejudice, defendants need not show actual prejudice. See Christian v. Loblaw Brands Ltd., No. 95-1823, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15301, at *5 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 13, 1995). Therefore, I will grant defendants' motion to strike specific dollar amounts claimed in the complaint.
Pursuant to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial