UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
March 2, 1981
STABILISIERUNGSFONDS FUR WEIN ET AL., APPELLANTS
KAISER STUHL WINE DISTRIBUTORS PTY. LTD. ET AL. REHEARING EN BANC DENIED APRIL 16, 1981
Before PECK,* Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, WILKEY and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (Civil Action No. 78-2043). 1981.CDC.40
DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE GINSBURG
On July 9, 1980, appellants moved to strike portions of appellees' brief. A motions panel referred the matter to the panel assigned to hear and decide the appeal. On January 30, 1981, prior to oral argument, the court ordered:
Appellants' motion to strike appellees' discussion of D.C.Code 13-423(b) is denied. The request is frivolous. Appellants seek jurisdiction over appellees under D.C.Code § 13-423, the District of Columbia's "long-arm" statute. Subsection (b) is an integral part of that statute, one that this court cannot ignore while considering appellants' arguments.
The requests to strike appellees' references to facts outside the record and to the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion, unresolved by the district court, are also denied. While appellants' motion is not frivolous in these respects, motions to strike, as a general rule, are disfavored *fn1 The points raised in the motion might have been presented, concisely, in the reply brief. There was no need for appellants to burden this court with a motion to strike. We note at this time, however, that since the district court did not pass upon the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court will not hear oral argument on that issue.
APPELLATE PANEL: FOOTNOTES
* Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(d).