of Peters and Glanzrock." Defendants argue that the allegation (1) is unrelated to the litigation because Cumis has failed to state a cause of action for piercing the corporate veil and (2) is prejudicial to Peters and Glanzrock because it is the basis upon which Cumis seeks to hold those defendants individually liable.
The court agrees that the challenged allegation should be stricken. First, the court finds that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for piercing the corporate veil. See, e.g., Bright v. Roadway Servs., Inc., 846 F. Supp. 693, 700 (N.D. Ill. 1994). In addition, to the extent that the allegation is included to provide information as to how Peters and Glanzrock were able to participate individually in the alleged misconduct, the challenged allegation is redundant of the first sentence of paragraph 8. Finally, the allegation is prejudicial to the extent that it may confuse the issue of Peters' and Glanzrock's individual liability for the alleged misconduct. Therefore, the court orders that the second sentence of paragraph 8 be stricken.
Defendants ask the court to strike paragraph 62, arguing that the allegations in paragraph 62 are not related to the litigation. The allegations in paragraph 62 relate to the conduct which Cumis contends constituted a breach of the fiduciary duty that Guardian owed to Cumis. Defendants have failed to show how the allegations are unduly prejudicial. Therefore, the court denies defendants' motion to strike paragraph 62.
Finally, defendants challenge the allegations in paragraph 69, arguing that the allegations are immaterial. As with paragraph 62, however, defendants have failed to show how the allegations in paragraph 69 are so unduly prejudicial as to warrant judicial action. Therefore, the court denies defendants' motion to strike paragraph 69.
For the foregoing reasons, the court (1) grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion to dismiss Cumis' complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); (2) denies defendants' motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e); and (3) grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion to strike certain allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Accordingly, the court enters the following orders:
1. The court grants defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Counts I, II, III, IV, and V and dismisses Counts I, II, III, IV, and V without prejudice.
2. The court denies defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Count VI and VIII.
3. The court denies defendants' Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement of Count VII.
4. The court grants defendants' Rule 12(f) motion to strike the allegation that "Guardian is the alter ego of Peters and Glanzrock" and orders that the allegation be stricken from paragraph 8.
5. The court denies defendants' Rule 12(f) motion to strike paragraphs 62 and 69.
6. The court grants plaintiff leave until December 8, 1997, to file an amended complaint. Defendants are given until December 22, 1997, to answer or otherwise plead to the amended complaint.
Date: NOV 18 1997
James H. Alesia
United States District Judge