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)

Download PDF
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

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?