Are you looking into what a motion to strike is? Are you a plaintiff and the defendant has filed an application to strike out your pleadings? Of course, sometimes the plaintiff can be the one filing to strike out the response to a civil claim.

A motion to strike is an American term. In Canada, we call it striking out pleadings. Either way, they are similar things.

Here is a common situation where a motion to strike could come up. Someone files a notice of civil claim and serves it on the defendant. The defendant gets the paper and is upset. They often have 29 days to respond. The defendant has to decide what to do. A few options are:

1. Don’t fight it and allow the default judgment
2. File a response to the notice of civil claim
3. Striking out pleadings

Application To Strike Pleadings

When you file an application to strike out pleadings, you are asking a judge to remove parts or all of the notice of civil claim. This can be very complicated to do. You will need to hire a business lawyer to help you. You are asking the judge to allow you to skip all the steps in the lawsuit process.

A good lawyer can help you. This is because they have a lot of things in their litigation toolbox. When you are dealing with large lawsuits, you don’t want to lose.

There are a few reasons why a judge might allow for pleadings to be struck. The first is that there is no legitimate claim.

If someone sues you for crashing a car into their house, and you never crashed a car into their house, that is not a legitimate claim. There has to be a legitimate claim or defence to the claim.

A Comprehensive Guide to ‘Motion to Strike’ Meaning

A reason to strike the pleadings is if one side is holding up the litigation’s progress. Further, another reason is if the thing being sued for is not something the courts can help with. There are lists of things that a judge can make a ruling on. The courts have limited power under the court rules.

Another reason for the striking of pleadings might be that the notice of civil claim doesn’t clearly explain what should happen. Further, there should be a clear request and ruling from the judge. For example, someone did something to you.

So what? You should say that someone took money from you and you are looking for a judgment of $100,000. You must make it clear what you want the judge to award in simple terms. It should not be needlessly complex and it should be intelligible.

Business Lawyers Can Help With A Motion To Strike

A motion to strike can also be simply explained as suggesting that someone has something in their pleadings that shouldn’t be there. It’s wrong or simply doesn’t belong. You want to get rid of these things so they are no longer in the complaint.

If you make an honest mistake in your pleading, you can ask a judge during the chamber hearing (applications) for the right to amend. The judges are often willing to do this. Or you might not want to amend. A business lawyer can explain this to you.

When is a motion to strike needed?

There are numerous situations where a motion to strike may be needed. The most common of which is that you did not commit the offence. Or that the thing you have been accused of is not something that should be dealt with by the courts.

If the other party is holding up the litigation process, you may also be able to use a motion to strike. An experienced lawyer will tell you whether it is possible to use this legal tool in your case.

What are pleadings?

Pleadings are filed by both parties in a court case. They outline to the judge their position as it pertains to the facts presented to date in the filing papers. Pleadings usually also contain further information that the party believes the court should be aware of.

For example, details of a legal reason why the claim should not proceed.

What does frivolous or vexatious mean?

In a legal setting, frivolous or vexatious means that a case has been bought for no good reason. It is the assertion that the case has no legal basis or merit. That has been bought merely as a way of causing the plaintiff trouble.

It’s a technique used by litigants, akin to a judge’s gavel hitting the sound block. The purpose? Erase irrelevant or improperly presented evidence or claims from the court record.

Interestingly, statistics from Lex Machina highlight a trend: civil cases in U.S. district courts witness a 22% surge in motions to strike in the past decade. A judicial tool, no doubt, but its surge suggests more.

Lawyers view the motion as a clarifying instrument. It strips away what’s unnecessary, leaving only what’s essential. A court procedure may become clogged with irrelevant allegations, false claims, or inadmissible evidence. The motion to strike steps in here, acting as the courtroom’s filter.

Decoding Legal Jargon: The Meaning of a Motion to Strike

Courts run on time and efficiency. A 2018 study by the Federal Judicial Center noted that civil cases averaged 12.5 months from filing to disposition. The motion to strike helps avoid needless extensions, pushing cases closer to resolution.

It’s crucial to understand its limitations. The motion won’t necessarily sway the case’s outcome. It can’t wipe out strong evidence, well-founded allegations, or legally sound arguments. Essentially, it’s not a magic wand that changes the course of the trial.

The crux lies in its applicability. Lex Machina’s study showed that a motion to strike gets approved only 36% of the time in federal courts.

There’s a certain caution, and judicial prudence surrounding its use. Courts avoid reckless application, knowing well the risk of impairing the judicial process.

Motion to Strike: Key Definitions and Implications in Law

Every motion to strike has a story to tell. Consider the landmark case of Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in 1974. The plaintiff’s motion to strike was denied, which influenced the court’s decision and set a precedent in the right of publicity law.

The court allowed the motion to strike in the 2001 antitrust case, Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko. The decision reshaped how antitrust law treats firms’ refusal to deal with competitors.

Then there’s the effect on lawyers. An increase in motions to strike pushes them to be more mindful of their initial pleadings. After all, nobody wants their arguments to be stricken off before they even get a chance to argue them.

Safeguards the court procedure

The motion to strike is a double-edged sword. It safeguards the court procedure, making it more efficient and focused. Yet, the process requires careful deliberation from judges, ensuring it doesn’t violate the litigants’ rights to a fair trial.

In its essence, a motion to strike exists as a vital tool, sculpting the path of justice by eliminating the unnecessary. As courts continue to evolve, so too will the nuanced use of this potent instrument, with its tremors echoing through the corridors of justice.

Cases That Made The News

In a dramatic legal maneuver, defence attorneys for film mogul Harvey Weinstein employed the motion to strike in his 2020 trial. They aimed to discard the testimony of actress Annabella Sciorra, arguing that her accusations fell outside the statute of limitations.

Despite the prevalence of this legal stratagem, it captured public attention due to Weinstein’s high-profile status. The court, however, denied the motion. Sciorra’s compelling testimony remained, echoing in the courtroom and impacting the jury’s verdict.

Weinstein’s case wasn’t an isolated instance. Another equally newsworthy application of the motion to strike emerged in the 2019 defamation lawsuit involving Tesla CEO, Elon Musk. Vernon Unsworth, a British diver, claimed Musk defamed him by insinuating he was a pedophile on Twitter.

American legal rule, the Anti-SLAPP statute

Musk’s legal team filed a motion to strike Unsworth’s claims, invoking an American legal rule, the Anti-SLAPP statute. This law protects against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, ostensibly safeguarding free speech.

Despite the defence’s vigorous efforts, the presiding judge rejected the motion. She argued the tweet in question could reasonably be understood as a factual assertion, allowing the defamation suit to proceed.

The trial gained notoriety, garnering a substantial media following. Musk was found not liable, resulting in a surprising twist to a case followed with bated breath by many.

‘Motion to Strike’ in Court Proceedings

Analyzing these cases underlines the strategic importance of the motion to strike in the legal domain. Even though they’re employed frequently — court statistics indicate approximately 20% of all filed cases utilize this approach — it’s the high-stakes, publicly visible cases that truly underscore their significance.

To illustrate, in the Weinstein trial, Sciorra’s testimony played a substantial role in the guilty verdict. Courtroom data shows jurors frequently assign significant weight to victim testimonies.

By aiming to strike Sciorra’s allegations, the defence hoped to significantly undercut the prosecution’s case. Although their motion was denied, the attempt itself highlighted their strategic approach to shaping the jury’s perception.

Role and Significance of a ‘Motion to Strike’ in Litigation

In Musk’s case, the motion to strike sought to lean on the Anti-SLAPP law, defending Musk’s right to express opinions on public platforms.

The motion’s failure led to the full trial, keeping the public glued to the unfolding drama. Musk’s eventual acquittal added yet another layer of complexity to the legal understanding of defamation in the digital age.

These high-profile cases underscore the evolving role of the motion to strike in contemporary courtroom battles. It continues to be a powerful tool in the hands of defence teams, helping shape the narrative and ultimately sway jury opinion.

Regardless of their success rate, their continued use serves as a testament to their strategic value in legal proceedings. The fact that they persist in high-stakes cases, where every legal maneuver is under intense public scrutiny, is indicative of their lasting relevance.