Understanding a Motion to Strike in Washington State

In Washington, a Motion to Strike is used to request the court to remove irrelevant or inappropriate material from any pleading, as per CR 12(f). However, these motions are generally not favored. A party must alert the court to their objections to evidence, typically through a timely motion to strike in the summary judgment context. The trial court has the discretion to rule on a motion to strike, but it may not consider inadmissible evidence when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. The court's decisions to strike pleadings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs when the decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons.

Background

“CR 12(f) allows a trial court to strike from any pleading any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” (See Brandmeier v. Miller, No. 80111-2-I, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2020).)

Generally, “motions to strike are not favored.” (See War. West. v. Crow Roo. Sheet Metal (2010) 157 Wn. App. 1007, n.1.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A party must alert the court to its objections to evidence. In the summary judgment context, this is usually done by a timely motion to strike.” (See Kaman v. Orchestra (2009) 150 Wn. App. 1010.)

“CR 12(f) requires that a motion to strike made by a party must be brought prior to responding to the pleading, or if no response is required, within 20 days.” (See Brandmeier v. Miller, No. 80111-2-I, at *1 n.6 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2020).)

“If the documents supporting the motion do not conform to the requirements of the rules, the opposing party must file a timely motion to strike the documents.” (See Burmeister v. State Farm Ins. Co. (1998) 92 Wn. App. 359, 365, 966 P.2d 921; Raymond v. Pacific Chemical (1999) 98 Wn. App. 739, 744.)

However, “failure to make a timely motion to strike waives any deficiency in affidavits submitted in support of a summary judgment motion.” (See Rakhshan v. Whatcom County (2009) 149 Wn. App. 1063.)

“Materials submitted in connection with a motion for summary judgment cannot actually be stricken—the trial court only refuses to consider the evidence.” (See Bolson v. Williams, No. 71365-5-I, at *1 n.[1] (Wash. Ct. App. May 27, 2014).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review a trial court's decision to strike pleadings for an abuse of discretion.” (See King County. Fire Prot. Districts No. 16, No. 36 & No. 40 v. Hous. Auth. of King County (1994) 123 Wn.2d 819, 826, 872 P.2d 516; Brandmeier v. Miller, No. 80111-2-I, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2020).)

“A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons." (In re Marriage of Littlefield (1997) 133 Wn.2d 39, 46-47, 940 P.2d 1362; Brandmeier v. Miller, No. 80111-2-I, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2020).)

“Although the trial court has discretion to rule on a motion to strike, a court may not consider inadmissible evidence when ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” (See Allen v. Asbestos Corp. (2007) 152 P.3d 1038, 4-5.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “[a] motion to strike is typically not necessary to point out evidence and issues a litigant believes this court should not consider. Rather, the brief is the appropriate vehicle for pointing out allegedly extraneous materials—not a separate motion to strike.” (See Engstrom v. Goodman (2012) 166 Wash.App. 905, 909 n. 2, 271 P.3d 959; Admasu v. Port of Seattle (2014) 185 Wash. App. 23, 41 n.49.)

It is also well settled that “such motions to strike are not favored, [because] this court has the ability to determine the facts relevant to a fair resolution of the issues presented.” (See In re Marriage of Kannin (2019) 11 Wn. App. 2d 1032, n.6.)