OPINION AND ORDER
KENNETH A. MARRA, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court upon Lorillard Tobacco Company's Motion to Strike Certain Allegations From Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [DE 25]. The motion is ripe for this Court's review. The Court has reviewed all submissions relating to this motion and is otherwise duly advised in the premises.
Lorillard seeks to have the Court strike two portions of the Amended Complaint. Paragraph 20(g) states that
[DE 4 at 5, 7].
Lorillard argues that the conclusory allegations of affirmative misrepresentation contained in this paragraph sound in fraud and are irrelevant to Plaintiff's claims. [DE 25 at 2]. It further argues that these allegations are scandalous matter meant to inflame the reader and prejudice Lorillard.
Lorillard makes similar arguments relative to the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint. This paragraph states:
[DE 4 at 12].
Lorillard objects to the phrase "gross negligence . . . and/or willful omissions" as immaterial and irrelevant and an improper attempt to seek punitive damages. [DE 25 at 3].
Lorillard seeks to have the language in these two paragraphs stricken. In the alternative, it seeks an order clarifying that these allegations shall be construed by the Court solely as allegations of fact. [Id. at 4].
In response, Plaintiff states that the language in Paragraph 20 is a factual allegation in support of Plaintiff's negligence cause of action. Plaintiff argues that the language in Paragraph 39 is relevant to Plaintiff's negligence claim and confirms that Plaintiff is not seeking punitive damages. [DE 29 at 3]. Plaintiff has, therefore, essentially agreed to Lorillard's alternative request for relief.
Having reviewed the Amended Complaint, and the arguments of the Parties, the language objected to does not meet the standard necessary to warrant striking the language from the Amended Complaint. Rule 12(f) permits a court to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." A motion to strike, however, is disfavored. As noted in Regions Bank v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., No. 11-23257-CIV-RNS, 2012 WL 5410609, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2012),
With the clarification provided by Plaintiffs in their responding papers, the Court does not think that the language in the Amended Complaint is inappropriate. Furthermore, should this case ultimately go before a jury, the Court's charge will set forth the law to be applied by the jury.
Accordingly, it is hereby