- 4 -
complaint may contain unnecessary detail and evidentiary matter,
the most important requirement of the pleadings is that the
opposing party be made aware of the claims he will be called upon
to meet. See Kamen Soap Prods. Co. v. Struthers Wells Corp., 159
F. Supp. 706, 713 (S.D.N.Y. 1958). Though certain evidentiary
facts may be unnecessary to a complaint, they may remain in the
complaint unless they are prejudicial. Groves v. Paden City
Glass Manufacturing Co., 2 F.R.D. 300, 301 (1942). The liberal
policy of pleadings allows parties to introduce issues that may
be more fully developed in the pretrial process.
Respondent has not accused petitioner of any inappropriate
practice, such as delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, in moving
to amend. Nor has respondent shown that the proposed amendment
would prejudice respondent in any respect. To the contrary,
respondent contends that the amendment would have no effect on
the outcome of this action. We see no reason to deny petitioner
leave to amend its petition.
Because of the reference to “irrelevancy,” it is unclear if
respondent meant to make a motion under Rule 52 to strike a
portion of the pleadings as amended. Rule 52 permits a party,
within certain time limits, to move to strike “any insufficient
claim or defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
frivolous, or scandalous matter.” Rule 52 was derived from rule
12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Federal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011