Victoria Urenia et al v. Public Storage et al

Filing 123

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE REFERENCES TO DISMISSED PLAINTIFFS 117 , 118 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: To avoid confusion as to what matter is struck, the Court strikes the Second Amended Complaint IN ITS ENTIRETY. Plaintiffs SHALL FILE a Third A mended Complaint, no later than 21 days from the date of this order, omitting references to facts pertaining only to the Dismissed. Plaintiffs and their individual claims. This includes references to the behavior of former defendant Mike Anz, unless the allegation is specifically relevant to some claim against the remaining Defendants. (lc). Modified on 1/6/2015. (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

VICTORIA URENIA, an
individual; SOLEDAD CORONA,
an individual,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18

v.
PUBLIC STORAGE, a real
estate investment trust;
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a
governmental entity; BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A.; MICHAEL ANZ,
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 13-01934 DDP (AJWx)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE
REFERENCES TO DISMISSED
PLAINTIFFS
[Dkt. Nos. 117, 118]

19
20

Presently before the Court is a motion to strike references in

21

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to former plaintiffs

22

Victoria Urenia, Soledad Corona, and Cathelene Hughes

23

(collectively, “Dismissed Plaintiffs”).

24

parties’ submissions, the Court adopts the following order.

25

I.

26

Having considered the

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs bring a class action lawsuit against the City of

27

Los Angeles, Bank of America, and Public Storage alleging civil

28

rights violations and unfair business practices stemming from

1

foreclosure and property seizure practices.

(SAC generally.)

2

Initially, the suit was being prosecuted by Dismissed Plaintiffs

3

Urenia and Corona.

4

Plaintiff Hughes and current Plaintiffs Javier and Brenda Hernandez

5

were added to the action.

6

dismissed Urenia, Corona, and Hughes from the action and allowed

7

Lenore Albert to withdraw as their attorney.

8

Albert remains as counsel for the Hernandezes.

9

2014, the remaining Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint,

10

renaming the Dismissed Plaintiffs “third parties,” but retaining

11

specific factual allegations relating to the Dismissed Plaintiffs,

12

as well as those relating to Defendant Michael Anz, who was only

13

personally implicated in allegations regarding Urenia and Coronoa

14

and was therefore dismissed as well.

In the First Amended Complaint, Dismissed

On September 29, 2014, the Court

(Dkt. No. 105.)

Ms.

On November 21,

(See Dkt. No. 109 at 5-6.)

15

The remaining Defendants bring this motion to strike in order

16

to eliminate references to the Dismissed Plaintiffs, alleging that

17

the references are now redundant, immaterial or impertinent.

18

Strike at 3:16.)

19

II.

20

(Mot.

LEGAL STANDARD
A court may strike any “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

21

scandalous matter” from a pleading.

22

‘redundant’ matter consists of allegations that constitute a

23

needless repetition of other averments . . . .”

24

Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 170 (E.D. Cal. 2005).

25

is that which has no essential or important relationship to the

26

claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.

27

matter consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not

28

necessary, to the issues in question.”
2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

“A

Wilkerson v.
“‘Immaterial’ matter

‘Impertinent’

Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty,

1

984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) rev'd as to other matters, 510

2

U.S. 517 (1994).

3

“[T]he function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the

4

expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating

5

spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . .

6

. .”

7

Cir. 1983).

8

III. DISCUSSION

9

A.

10

Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th

Timeliness of Filings
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’

11

Opposition was filed three days late.

12

filed a reply, and, as discussed below, Defendants prevail on their

13

motion, the Court will not impose additional sanctions at this

14

time.

15

abide by filing deadlines in the future may result in the Court

16

imposing sanctions, including (but not limited to) striking the

17

late filing in its entirety and/or allowing the other party

18

additional briefing.

19

B.

20

As Defendants have already

However, Plaintiffs are warned that repeated failure to

Immaterial and Impertinent Matter
Defendants argue that references to the Dismissed Plaintiffs

21

are redundant, immaterial or impertinent, and the Court agrees, for

22

two reasons.

23

of the suit, and are factually unrelated to the Hernandezes’

24

claims, any factual allegations specific to the Dismissed

25

Plaintiffs do not pertain to, are not necessary to, and bear no

26

relationship to any of the individual claims in the SAC.

27
28

First, as their individual claims are no longer part

Second, factual allegations related to the Dismissed
Plaintiffs are not necessary to, and bear no essential or important
3

1

relationship to, the class allegations.

2

allegations regarding Urenia, Corona, and Hughes might serve as

3

examples of the class allegations, the same thing is true of the

4

factual allegations regarding the Hernandezes.

5

which are common to all class members could be relevant, and by

6

definition the Hernandezes will have alleged such common facts.

7

Thus, repeating such allegations as to Urenia, Corona, and Hughes

8

would be redundant, while at the same time not proving the

9

existence of a class (four being nowhere near enough to constitute

10

While it is true that the

Only allegations

a class).

11

As a practical matter, striking the allegations relevant only

12

to the Dismissed Plaintiffs avoids “litigating spurious issues,” in

13

that it enables the Defendants to properly focus on the remaining

14

issues – the individual claims of the Hernandezes and the class

15

claims – without having to answer individualized factual

16

allegations unrelated to either.

17

no longer a defendant in this case, it is inappropriate for there

18

to be allegations as to his potentially culpable behavior, unless

19

it is clear that the allegations are relevant to a claim against

20

the remaining Defendants.

21

Moreover, because Michael Anz is

Because factual allegations related to the Dismissed

22

Plaintiffs’ claims are redundant, immaterial, and impertinent as to

23

the remaining claims, the Court finds that the motion to strike

24

should be granted.

25

IV.

26

CONCLUSION
The Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

To avoid confusion as to

27

what matter is struck, the Court strikes the Second Amended

28

Complaint IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Plaintiffs SHALL FILE a Third Amended
4

1

Complaint, no later than 21 days from the date of this order,

2

omitting references to facts pertaining only to the Dismissed

3

Plaintiffs and their individual claims.

4

to the behavior of former defendant Mike Anz, unless the allegation

5

is specifically relevant to some claim against the remaining

6

Defendants.

This includes references

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

Dated: January 6, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5