Nunez v. Powell, et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING 30 Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/10/2019. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESUS A. NUNEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:18-cv-00213-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
(ECF No. 30.)

KAYLEEN POWELL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Jesus A. Nunez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 10, 2018, the United

20

States District Court for the Central District of California opened this case with a letter by

21

Melissa Nunez (Plaintiff’s daughter) and an attached declaration by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 2.) On

22

January 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed the original Complaint in this action. (ECF No. 8.) On

23

February 8, 2018, the case was transferred to this court. (ECF No. 11.)

24

This case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on April

25

26, 2018, against defendant Dr. Kokor (“Defendant”) on Plaintiff’s medical claim under the

26

Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 18.)1

27
28

1

All other claims and defendants were dismissed from this case on January 11, 2019. (ECF No.

23.)
1

1
2
3

On May 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendant’s affirmative defenses to
the complaint. (ECF No. 30.)
II.

MOTION TO STRIKE – RULE 12(f)

4

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court may strike

5

from a pleading an insufficient defense of any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

6

scandalous matter. The court may act: (1) on its own; or (2) on motion made by a party either

7

before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being

8

served with the pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to

9

avoid the costs that arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to

10

trial. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other

11

grounds, 510 U.S. 517, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994); Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H.

12

Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). Grounds for a motion to strike must appear on

13

the face of the pleading or from matters which the court may judicially notice. See Fantasy,

14

Inc., 984 F.2d at 1528; Securities and Exch. Comm'n v. Sands, 902 F.Supp. 1149, 1165

15

(C.D.Cal.1995). When ruling on a motion to strike, the court must accept as true the pleader’s

16

factual allegations. See Vokal v. United States, 177 F.2d 619, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1949).

17

To prevail on a motion to strike an affirmative defense, the moving party must persuade

18

the court that there are no disputed questions of fact or law and that the defense could not

19

succeed under any set of circumstances. See Securities and Exch. Comm'n, 902 F.Supp. at

20

1165. “Even when the defense under attack presents a purely legal question, courts are

21

reluctant to determine disputed or substantial questions of law on a motion to strike.” Id. at

22

1166; see Vokal, 177 F.2d at 622-23, 625; United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., 812

23

F.Supp. 1528, 1535 (E.D. Cal. 1992). Motions to strike are generally regarded with disfavor

24

because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice. See Securities and Exch.

25

Comm'n, 902 F.Supp. at 1165-66; LeDuc v. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co., 814 F.Supp. 820,

26

830 (N.D. Cal.1992). The moving party may thus be required to show prejudice arising from

27

the matter to be stricken. See Securities and Exch. Comm'n, 902 F.Supp. at 1166; LeDuc, 814

28

F.Supp. at 830.
2

1

Discussion

2

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ eleven affirmative defenses on the grounds that

3

they are a boilerplate listing of affirmative defenses, irrelevant to the claim asserted. Plaintiff

4

argues that Defendant has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that the affirmative

5

defenses are plausible. In addition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has alleged only conclusory

6

statements and failed to allege any identifiable facts supporting the affirmative defenses.

7

Plaintiff does not demonstrate any prejudice. After review of the affirmative defenses

8

the court is not persuaded that Defendant cannot succeed on any of them under any set of

9

circumstances, or that they are insufficient as a matter of law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to

10

strike shall be denied.

11

III.

12
13

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike,

filed on May 9, 2019, is DENIED.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 10, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3