United States of America v. Ivan M. Forbes et al
Filing
25
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE 18 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Docket No. 8 is hereby STRICKEN. Defendants are given leave to file an answer to the Complaint not later than ten days from the effective date of this order. Failure to do so may result in a judgment of default. (lc). Modified on 11/5/2014 .(lc).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
IVAN M. FORBES; ELKE J.
FORBES,
15
16
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 14-03884 DDP (Ex)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE
(DOCKET NUMBER 18)
17
18
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike
19
Defendants’ responsive document in its entirety as immaterial or
20
impertinent.
21
adopts the following order.
22
I.
23
Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court
BACKGROUND
Defendants Ivan and Elke Forbes did not file United States
24
federal tax returns for the years 2002-2006.
25
Plaintiff United States of America has assessed back taxes and
26
penalties against Ivan and Elke in the amounts of $108,985.34 and
27
$22,261.83, respectively.
28
reduce the assessments to judgment.
(Compl. ¶¶ 10-16.)
(Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.)
It now seeks to
1
Defendants have filed with the Court a “Response to Summons
2
and Complaint,” which Plaintiff takes as an answer but which could
3
also be read as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
4
(Dkt. No. 8.1)
5
immaterial and/or impertinent under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
6
II.
7
Plaintiff moves to strike this “Response” as
LEGAL STANDARD
A court may strike any “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
8
scandalous matter” from a pleading.
9
“‘Immaterial’ matter is that which has no essential or important
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
10
relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.
11
‘Impertinent’ matter consists of statements that do not pertain,
12
and are not necessary, to the issues in question.”
13
v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) rev'd as to other
14
matters, 510 U.S. 517 (1994).
15
III. DISCUSSION
Fantasy, Inc.
16
Striking is “generally disfavored because of the limited
17
importance of pleadings in federal practice and because it is
18
usually used as a delaying tactic.”
19
Co., 372 F. Supp. 2d 556, 561 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
20
defendant’s responsive pleading in its entirety, in particular, is
21
a drastic step that the Court is reluctant to entertain.
22
RDF Media Ltd. v. Fox Broad.
Striking a pro se
Nonetheless, in this case, that step is warranted.
23
Defendants’ “Response” is utterly non-responsive to the Complaint.
24
To the extent that it makes cognizable arguments, they appear to be
25
three in number.
First, Defendants assert that they live in the
26
1
27
28
Defendants were served with the Complaint on May 29, 2014.
The “Response” document was filed on June 24, 2014. Whatever its
nature, the Court notes that it was filed outside the deadline
established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i).
2
1
“Republic of California without UNITED STATES” and that they
2
“transact at arm’s length with ‘this State’ and do not accept the
3
liability or duty of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed
4
contract, commercial agreement or implied trust relationship.”
5
(“Response” ¶¶ 1, 4.)
6
produce the written contract that the court presumes to be
7
administering so that we may inspect it for authenticity and to
8
determine iny duties and obligations that we may have under said
9
contract.”
They demand that “the plaintiff . . .
(Id. at ¶ 10.)
The gravamen of this argument appears
10
to be that they are not part of the United States and do not
11
recognize the authority of the United States government over them
12
except through mutually-agreed contract.
13
The Court rejects this argument as a cognizable defense.
14
California is one of the United States.
15
Admission of the State of California into the Union, 9 Stat. 452
16
(1850); compare Cal. Const., preamble (1849) (“We, the people of
17
California . . . .”), with Cal. Const., preamble (1879) (“We, the
18
People of the State of California . . . .”).
19
law is the “supreme Law of the Land” in the States.
20
art. VI, cl 2.
21
324-25, 4 L. Ed. 97 (1816) (“There can be no doubt that it was
22
competent to the people to invest the general government with all
23
the powers which they might deem proper and necessary . . . and to
24
give them a paramount and supreme authority.”).
25
See An Act for the
United States federal
U.S. Const.,
See also Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304,
Defendants are (admittedly) residents of California, a State
26
of the United States; hence they are subject to United States law.
27
Because any argument otherwise “has no essential or important
28
relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being
3
1
pleaded,” the Court finds such arguments and any matter surrounding
2
them to be immaterial.
3
Defendants’ second apparent argument is that the Court itself
4
does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and/or that venue is
5
improper.
6
a cognizable defense; however, Defendants present no facts or
7
argument suggesting that jurisdiction or venue is improper.
8
Indeed, Defendants do not even plead or allege that jurisdiction
9
actually is improper; rather, they simply state that they
(“Response,” ¶¶ 12, 17.
See also Dkt. No. 21.)
This is
10
“suspect[]” it to be so.
11
discourse on “Elements of Jurisdiction.”
12
not correspond to any cognizable jurisdictional argument, and seem
13
instead to be mostly concerned with due process.
14
appear to be nothing more than a “series of conclusory statements
15
asserting the existence of an affirmative defense without stating a
16
reason why that affirmative defense might exist.”
17
Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1172
18
(N.D. Cal. 2010).
19
They also provide, mid-document, a
But these “Elements” do
These defenses
Barnes v. AT & T
Defendants also do not allege any actual violations of due
20
process, which might be considered their third argument.
21
they “find,” conclusorily, that “the plaintiff has not properly
22
identified the accused,” “the accuser is not properly named,” “the
23
plaintiff has made no proper verification of the accusation sworn
24
under penalties of perjury,” and “the accuser has not complied with
25
law, procedure, and form in bringing the charge and therefore
26
served defective process.”
27
provide no factual or legal basis for these apparent defenses.
28
Court interprets Defendants’ language liberally, but even so, the
(Id. at ¶¶ 13-16.)
4
Rather,
Again, Defendants
The
1
arguments amount to nothing on their face.
2
sufficiently identified, as evidenced by the fact that they are
3
well aware that there is a court proceeding against them.
4
Plaintiff is also sufficiently identified as the United States of
5
America.
6
provide sworn declarations with its complaint.
7
identify no cognizable defect in Plaintiff’s service of process.
8
9
Defendants have been
Plaintiff is not required, at the pleadings stage, to
Finally, Defendants
As to the first three issues, Defendants have given no hint as
to any “set of circumstances” under which their defenses could
10
succeed.
11
Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1032 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
12
defenses are “insufficient” within the meaning of Rule 12(f).
13
to the fourth, although improper service is a cognizable argument,
14
Defendants’ allegation is simply conclusory, and Defendants point
15
to no fact showing improper service.
16
Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pac.,
Hence, these
As
(“Response” ¶¶ 5-7.)
Finally, other parts of the “Response” are simply cryptic:
17
e.g., “since plaintiff has not enjoined Ivan and Elke, the man and
18
woman real parties, we must return the court documents to avoid the
19
penalty of false impersonation.”
20
do not bear any relationship to any asserted claim or defense, they
21
are immaterial.
22
(Compl. at ¶ 18.)
Because they
When all such material is stripped away from the “Response,”
23
there is so little left that the document cannot function as a
24
pleading.
25
document in its entirety.
26
IV.
27
28
Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to strike the
CONCLUSION
Dkt. No. 8 is hereby STRICKEN.
Defendants are given leave to
file an answer to the Complaint not later than ten days from the
5
1
effective date of this order.
2
Failure to do so may result in a
judgment of default.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: November 5, 2014
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?