Ivin Mood v. County of Orange et al
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AS UNTIMELY by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato, (dts)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 08, 2017
Ivin Mood v. County of Orange, et al.
PRESENT: HON. KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF(S):
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT(S):
The Court is in receipt of Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint ("Motion to Strike") with a hearing set for January 11, 2018. ECF Docket No. ("Dkt.")
28. On December 7, 2017, Defendant also filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint. Dkt. 29. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a party may move to strike
"from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter" before responding to the pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Therefore, the Motion to Strike
is untimely and must be DENIED as MOOT. See Culinary & Serv. Emps. Union v. Hawaii Emp.
Benefit Admin., 688 F.2d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir. 1982) (district court committed error by striking
counts from amended complaint on party's motion to strike where defendants “had already filed
their answer to the complaint”); see also Brooks v. Caswell, No. 3:14-CV-01232-AC, 2015 WL
5178080, at *4 (D. Or. Sept. 3, 2015) (denying motion to strike as untimely Because a "party must
file a Rule 12(f) motion before responding to a pleading").
Initials of Deputy Clerk
MINUTES FORM 11
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?