Opinion
ORDER
VAUGHN WALKER, District Judge.
Third party defendant Zions First National Bank (Zions) moves to strike certain allegations from third party plaintiff Vintage Capital's (Vintage) third party complaint (Doc #15). Doc #47. According to the analysis below, the court DENIES Zions motion to strike.
I
The facts are taken from the court's February 18, 2004, order. Doc #55. Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (FAMCO) is a federally chartered corporation and a government-sponsored enterprise that creates a secondary market for agricultural real estate and rural home mortgages. Id . Mortgages are purchased and serviced by approved seller/servicers pursuant to the terms of a seller/servicer agreement. Id . Vintage entered into a seller/servicer arrangement with FAMCO on January 2, 1998. Id.
On August 3, 2003, FAMCO filed a complaint against Vintage. Doc #1. The complaint set forth claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, injunctive relief and violation of the Lanham Act. Id . FAMCO alleged that Vintage violated a seller/servicer agreement with FAMCO in connection with the origination and sale to FAMCO of a loan. Id.
On September 11, 2003, Vintage filed a counterclaim against FAMCO and Zions for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, interference with prospective economic advantage, trade libel, restraint of trade and fraud. Doc #13.
On September 18, 2003, Vintage filed a third party complaint against Zions and other defendants for indemnity. Doc #15.
On September 24, 2003, FAMCO filed a motion to strike certain allegations from Vintage's counterclaim pursuant to FRCP 12(f). Doc #16. In this motion, FAMCO sought to have stricken portions of the counterclaim that it thought were impertinent and immaterial. Id . On February 18, 2004, the court denied FAMCO's motion to strike in full, finding that the allegations at issue were not impertinent or immaterial and not unduly prejudicial to FAMCO. Doc #55.
On February 2, 2004, Zions filed a motion to strike certain allegations from Vintage's third party complaint as impertinent and immaterial pursuant to FRCP 12(f). Doc #47. Vintage opposes this motion, arguing that at least two of the allegations at issue were already discussed by the court in relation to FAMCO's previously-denied motion to strike. Doc #76. The other allegations at issue, Vintage argues, are not impertinent, immaterial or unduly prejudicial. Id.
II
Under FRCP 12(f), a court "may order stricken from any pleading * * * any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Immaterial matters have "no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief." Fantasy, Inc. v Fogerty , 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 , 534-35 (1994). Impertinent matters consist of "statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question." Id.
Motions to strike are not favored and "should not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation." Colaprico v Sun Microsystem, Inc , 758 F.Supp. 1335, 1339 (ND Cal 1991). When a court considers a motion to strike, it "must view the pleading in a light most favorable to the pleading party." In re 2TheMart.com, Inc Sec Lit , 114 F.Supp.2d 955, 965 (CD Cal 2000). A court must deny the motion to strike if there is any doubt whether the allegations in the pleadings might be relevant in the action. Id . "Evidentiary allegations are not usually proper pleading, but allegations supplying background or historical material or other matters of an evidentiary nature will not be stricken unless unduly prejudicial to defendant." LeDuc v Kentucky Life Ins Co , 814 F.Supp. 820, 830 (ND Cal 1992) (emphasis added).
A
Zions first seeks to strike references to settlement negotiations (between FAMCO and Vintage) made by Vintage in paragraph 20 of the third party complaint. Doc #47. Zions relies on FRE 408, which makes evidence of offers to compromise inadmissible. Id at 3. Zions thus claims that because the settlement negotiations are inadmissible, allegations in the third party complaint concerning such settlement negotiations are immaterial and impertinent. Id.
As the court stated when FAMCO attempted to strike these same allegations in its motion to strike, the allegations need to be shown not to have an important relationship to the claim or not to pertain to the issues in question. See Fantasy, Inc , 984 F.2d at 1527. While the allegations of settlement negotiations may not be admissible to prove the issue of liability, they may be admissible for another purpose, such as motive. Viewing the pleading in a light most favorable to Vintage, the court cannot say with certainty that the allegations will not be at issue in the trial. See In re 2TheMart.com, 114 F.Supp. at 965.
Zions, perhaps anticipating the court's Rule 408 ruling, argues that even if the settlement negotiations are admissible under Rule 408, these negotiations are still irrelevant under Rule 401. Doc #47 at 7. Zions argues that the settlement negotiations occurred between Vintage and FAMCO, not Vintage and Zions. Id . Accordingly, Zions argues that it "can think of no possible relevance" that these settlement negotiations have in relation to Vintage's claim for indemnity against Zions. While the court notes that Zions does make a cogent Rule 401 argument, even if the allegations of compromise negotiations are irrelevant, the allegations, which offer background and historical information, will not be excluded unless they are unduly prejudicial to Zions. See LeDuc , 814 F.Supp. at 830. Zions shows no prejudice at all related to these allegations, much less undue prejudice.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Zion's motion to strike paragraph 20.
B
Zions also seeks to strike paragraphs 17, 19 and 24 and portions of paragraphs 15 and 23. Doc #47 at 8-12.
Zions seeks to strike the following words from paragraph 15: "Without prior discussion of the charging order." Id at 9. Likewise, Zions seeks to strike the following words from paragraph 23: "No effort was made to contact counsel for Vintage Capital." Id at 11. Zions claims that both of these portions "suggests some duty on the part of Zions to contact Vintage." Id . The likelihood that this language will lead to unwarranted and prejudicial inferences against Zions is low. See Fantasy, Inc , 984 F.2d at 1528. The court DENIES Zions' motion to strike these portions of paragraphs 15 and 23.
Finally, Zions seeks to strike paragraphs 17, 19 and 24 in their entirety. Zions argument for striking each paragraph is the same - the allegations contained in these three paragraphs belong only Vintage's counterclaim against FAMCO, not in the third party complaint against Zions. Id at 9-12. Again, viewing the pleading in a light most favorable to Vintage, the court cannot say with certainty that the allegations will not be at issue in the trial. See Fantasy, Inc , 984 F.2d at 1527. Moreover, even if these allegations are not at issue in the trial, they offer background information concerning the intertwined facts between the complaint, counterclaim and third party complaint. Accordingly, these allegations will not be excluded unless they are unduly prejudicial to Zions. Leduc , 814 F.Supp. at 830. Zions has fallen far short of such a showing. The court DENIES Zions' motion to strike paragraphs 17, 19 and 24.
III
For the reasons stated above, the court DENIES, in its entirety, Zions' motion to strike (Doc #47) certain allegations contained in the third party complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.