United States of America v. Molen et al

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/19/11 GRANTING 88 Motion to Strike; the 9/15/11 hearing is VACATED. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:10-cv-02591 MCE KJN PS

v.
JAMES O. MOLEN (also known as
James-Orbin: Molen); et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

ORDER
/

16

Defendants James Molen and Sandra Molen (the “defendants”) are proceeding

17

without counsel in this action.1 Presently before the court is defendants’ “Motion To Strike All

18

References To James-Orbin: Molen And Sandra-Lyn: Molen As A.K.A.’s Of The Defendants.”

19

(Dkt. No. 88.) Plaintiff the United States (the “plaintiff”) filed a non-opposition to the motion.

20

(Dkt. No. 90 at 88.) Because oral argument would not materially aid the resolution of the

21

pending motion, the matter is submitted on the briefs and record without a hearing. See Fed. R.

22

Civ. P. 78(b); E. D. Local Rule 230(g). The undersigned has fully considered the briefs and the

23

record in this case and, for the reasons that follow, the undersigned grants defendants’ motion.

24

////

25
1

26

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule
302(c)(21). (See Dkt. No. 11.)
1

1

I.

2

BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2010, plaintiff filed its complaint against defendants, as well as

3

against defendants’ alleged trust and partnership entities. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint

4

alleges multiple failures to pay federal taxes by the defendants and the partnership. (Compl. ¶¶

5

17-18, 28, 30, 34, 36-41.) The complaint also alleges that the trust is both a sham and the

6

defendants’ alter ego, and plaintiff seeks to set aside the purported transfer of real property from

7

the defendants to the trust. (Id. ¶¶ 42-54, p. 13 ¶¶ D-E.) Plaintiff seeks foreclosure of tax liens

8

encumbering the defendants’ alleged real property in Butte County, California. (Id. at p. 13 ¶ I.)

9

The complaint alleges that defendants “reside in Butte County, California, within

10

this judicial district . . . .” (Compl. ¶ 5.) The complaint further alleges that defendants have

11

occupied 189 Connors Avenue in Butte County, California, “as their residence from at least 1976

12

to the present.” (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 44, 49.)

13

Defendants filed a verified Answer to the complaint on November 15, 2010.

14

(Answer, Dkt. No. 4.) In that answer, defendants asserted defenses, including a lack of personal

15

jurisdiction, on behalf of themselves as individuals, as well as on behalf of entities (i.e., the trust

16

and the partnership). (Id. at 1-2, 5, 7, 8.) The portion of the Answer asserting defenses on behalf

17

of these entities has since been stricken. (Dkt. Nos. 26.)

18

During a hearing on January 27, 2011, defendant James Molen informed the court

19

of his preference to be referred to as “James-Orbin: Molen,” and of his preference that the

20

caption in this action be amended to reflect the preferred name. Sandra Molen had also

21

expressed a preference to be referred to as “Sandra-Lyn: Molen.” (Dkt. No. 8, 2-3.)

22

Accordingly, the court amended the case caption to reflect that these two defendants are also

23

known as these “preferred” names. (Dkt. No. 26.)

24

II.

25
26

LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a district court “may

strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
2

1

scandalous matter.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010)

2

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

3

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).). “The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to

4

avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by

5

dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . .” Id. Granting a motion to strike may be proper if

6

it will make trial less complicated or eliminate serious risks of prejudice to the moving party,

7

delay, or confusion of the issues. Fantasy, 984 F.2d at 1527-28; Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of

8

America v. Dunmore, No. CIV. S-07-2493 LKK-DAD, 2010 WL 5200940, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec.

9

15, 2010) (unpublished) (same). Motions to strike are generally disfavored, and in determining

10

whether to grant a motion to strike a district court resolves any doubt as to the sufficiency of a

11

defense in defendant’s favor. E.g., Mag Instrument, Inc. v. JS Prods., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1102,

12

1106 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (internal citations omitted).

13

III.

14

DISCUSSION
Defendants seek to “strike all of Plaintiff’s references to JAMES-ORBIN:

15

MOLEN or James-Orbin: Molen and SANDRA-LYN: MOLEN or Sandra-Lyn: Molen as a.k.a.’s

16

of the Defendants.” (Dkt. No. 88 at 2.) In particular, defendants argue that “[t]he Defendants are

17

pro per legal fictions. The supposed a.k.a.’s are not legal fictions or a.k.a.’s of the Defendants;

18

but instead, are the agents and executors for the Defendants. James-Orbin: Molen and Sandra-

19

Lyn: Molen are natural human beings under common law born on the soil of California and are

20

not to be confused with being one and the same as the legal fiction defendants.” (Id.)

21

Puzzlingly, defendants’ request to strike all references to what they have

22

previously described as their “preferred” names directly conflicts with defendants’ previous

23

requests to this court. As described above, defendants have expressed their wish that their

24

preferred names be used in this action. Accordingly, the court amended the case caption to

25

reflect that these two defendants are “also known as” these preferred names. (Dkt. No. 26.)

26

Plaintiff has explicitly not opposed the striking of defendants’ “preferred” names
3

1

from the pleadings . (Dkt. No. 90 at 4.) Plaintiff has also compellingly explained that continued

2

use of defendants’ preferred names as “a.k.a.’s” in this case causes needless confusion and

3

irrelevant arguments. (Id. at 4-5.)

4

The undersigned agrees with defendants and plaintiff that continued use of

5

defendants’ preferred names constitutes a “redundant” or “immaterial” matter that should be

6

stricken from the pleadings. See Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 973. Rather than alleviating

7

defendants’ concerns regarding their names, as was intended, amending the case caption and

8

pleadings to refer to defendants’ “a.k.a.’s” has only spawned confusion and led to further

9

concerns from defendants. Even though defendants themselves requested that they be called by

10

their preferred names with particularized punctuation (i.e., “James-Orbin: Molen”), use of those

11

names has managed only to offend defendants’ beliefs/theories regarding the interplay between

12

the so-called “a.k.a.’s” and defendants’ alleged status as “legal fictions” versus “agents and

13

executors.” Because continued use of these “a.k.a.’s” would lead to further confusion and

14

“redundant” or “immaterial” issues and arguments, and because plaintiff agrees with defendants

15

that these preferred names should be stricken, all references to “a.k.a.’s” shall stricken from the

16

pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(f). Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 88) is granted.

17

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

19

And Sandra-Lyn: Molen as A.K.A.’s Of The Defendants” (Dkt. No. 88) is granted.

20
21
22
23
24

Defendants’ “Motion To Strike All References To James-Orbin: Molen

2.

The motion’s hearing date, which is currently set for September 15, 2011,

is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 19, 2011
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
4