J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Maravilla

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/24/13 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION to Strike defendant's Amended affirmative defenses 35 is GRANTED without prejudice to defendant's filing a noticed Motion for Leave to Amend. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS,
INC.,

NO. CIV. 2:12-02899 WBS EFB

13
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES

14
v.
15
16
17

BLANCA E. MARAVILLA,
individually and d/b/a LAS
PALMAS MEXICAN RESTAURANT,

18

Defendant.
/

19
20

----oo0oo----

21

Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc., brought suit

22

against defendant Blanca E. Maravilla asserting claims arising

23

from defendant’s allegedly wrongful interception of a television

24

program.1

25

strike defendant’s amended affirmative defenses pursuant to

Currently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to

26
1

27
28

Because oral argument would not be of material
assistance, the court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs
pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 230(g). (Docket No. 40.)
1

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

2

The court granted plaintiff’s first motion to strike

3

defendant’s affirmative defenses as to defendant’s first, second,

4

third, fourth, and eighth defenses.

5

(Docket No. 29).)

6

defense and gave her fourteen days to file an amended answer

7

consistent with the May 21, 2013 Order.

8

motion as to defendant’s fifth, sixth, and seventh defenses.

9

(Id.)

10

(May 21, 2013 Order at 6

It granted defendant leave to amend the third

(Id.)

It denied the

On June 3, 2013, defendant filed an amendment to her

11

answer.

12

affirmative defenses and withdrew her sixth affirmative defense.

13

(Id.)

14

These amendments are inconsistent with the court’s May 21, 2013

15

Order.

16

seventh defense, it did not offer plaintiff a chance to amend

17

those defenses.

18

third affirmative defense.

19

(Docket No. 30.)

She amended her fifth and seventh

She did not seek to amend the third affirmative defense.

As the court did not strike plaintiff’s fifth, sixth, or

It only granted defendant leave to amend her

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that a

20

party may amend its pleading once within twenty-one days after

21

serving it and in all cases may amend only with the opposing

22

party’s consent or the court’s leave.

23

Defendant did not request plaintiff’s consent or leave of the

24

court to file the amendment.

25

amendments went beyond the scope allowed by the court’s May 21,

26

2013 Order and are otherwise not allowed under Rule 15, they must

27

be stricken.

28

after June 24, 2013 no further amendments to pleadings will be

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Thus, because defendant’s

(See also June 18, 2013 Order at 2 (providing that

2

1

permitted except with leave of the court) (Docket No. 33).)

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to

3

strike defendant’s amended affirmative defenses be, and the same

4

hereby is, GRANTED without prejudice to defendant’s filing a

5

noticed motion for leave to amend.

6

DATED:

July 24, 2013

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3