J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Tabatah et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/6/2013 ORDERING that the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's 13 Motion to Strike Defendants' first affirmative defense, but DENIES the remaining portion of Plaintiff's Motion. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 12 No. 2: 12-cv-01212-MCE-KJN Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 TABATAH et al., 15 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants. 16 On May 4, 2012, J & J Sport’s Production (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against 17 18 Shateh Tabatah (“Tabatah”) the owner of JJ Fish and Chicken (“JJ Fish”) (collectively 19 referred to as “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Tabatah unlawfully intercepted 20 Plaintiff’s boxing broadcast, aired it at JJ Fish, and Tabatah earned money from illegally 21 airing the boxing match. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant’s Amended Answer included nine 22 affirmative defenses. (ECF No. 10.) On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed this Motion to 23 Strike. (ECF No. 13.) Defendants oppose it. (ECF No. 14.)1 Based on the reasons 24 below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion in part and denies Plaintiff’s motion in part. 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 28 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h). 1 1 STANDARD 2 3 The Court may strike “from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, 4 immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “[T]he function of a 5 Rule 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise 6 from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial. . . .” Sidney- 7 Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). Federal courts view 8 motions under Rule 12(f) with disfavor and infrequently grant them. 5C Charles Alan 9 Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1380 (3d ed. 1998). The Court views the 10 pleading under attack “in the light most favorable to the pleader.” Garcia ex rel. Marin v. 11 Clovis Unified Sch. Dist., 2009 WL 2982900, at *23 (E.D. Cal. Sept.14, 2009). 12 In order for a court to determine that a defense is “insufficient” as Rule 12(f) 13 requires, the Court “must be convinced that there are no questions of fact, that any 14 questions of law are clear and not in dispute, and that under no set of circumstances 15 could the defense succeed.” J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Delgado 2011 WL 16 219594, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2011) (quoting Schmidt v. Pentair, Inc., 2010 WL 17 4607412, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2010)); see also Bassett v. Ruggles et al., 2009 WL 18 2982895, at *24 (E.D. Cal. Sept.14, 2009); Lopez v. Wachovia Mortg. 2009 WL 19 4505919, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2009). “Immaterial matter is that which has no 20 essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” 21 Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds 22 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “Impertinent matter 23 consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in 24 question.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Redundant matter includes 25 “needless repetition of other averments or [allegations that] are foreign to the issue.” 26 Sliger v. Prospect Mortg., LLC, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1216 (E.D. Cal. 2011). 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that if “the [C]ourt is in doubt as to whether 2 challenged matter may raise an issue of fact or law, the motion to strike should be 3 denied, leaving an assessment of the sufficiency of the allegations for adjudication on 4 the merits.” Id. (quoting Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co. 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 5 2010)). 6 7 ANALYSIS 8 9 The Court’s analysis begins by determining whether Defendants’ affirmative 10 defenses are (1) insufficient; (2) redundant; (3) immaterial; (4) impertinent; or 11 (5) scandalous as Rule 12(f) motion requires. After reviewing Defendants’ Answer, 12 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, and Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, the 13 Court concludes that most of Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied, however, the Court will 14 grant Plaintiff’s Motion as it relates to the affirmative defenses below. (ECF Nos. 10, 13, 15 and 14.) 16 The Court strikes Defendants’ first affirmative defenses titled “Failure to State a 17 Claim.” Failure to state a claim is not an affirmative defense. J & J Sports Productions, 18 Inc. 2011 WL 219594, at *1; J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Montanez , 2010 WL 19 5279907 * at 1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2010). If Defendants wish to argue that Plaintiff failed 20 to state a claim, Defendants should file a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. 21 Because the Ninth Circuit has directed the Court to deny Rule 12(f) Motions if the 22 Court is uncertain whether an affirmative defense is sufficient, the Court denies the 23 remaining portions of Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 3 1 CONCLUSION 2 3 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike 4 Defendants’ first affirmative defense, but DENIES the remaining portion of Plaintiff’s 5 Motion. (ECF No. 11.) 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 6, 2013 8 9 10 ___________________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?