Somera v. County of San Joaquin et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 1/14/2015 DENYING defendants' 22 Motion to Strike plaintiff's First Amended Complaint since they have not shown the Motion to be authorized by Local rule 12(f). (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHESTER MARK SOMERA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:14-CV-1424-GEB-AC

v.
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN;
MICHAEL ARREOLA; CHRIS
STIEHR; CHRIS TUNQUIST;
NELIDA STONE; JANET LEE
BARTON; CLAUDE PURKIS; BRENT
MANGHAM; MARK BUTLER; and
DOES 1 through 30, inclusive,

18

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Defendants.

19
20
Defendants Mangham and Butler move under Federal Rule

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

of

Civil

Procedure

(“Rule”)

12(f)

for

an

order

striking

the

portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint sounding in state
law notwithstanding Plaintiff’s characterization of his claims as
federal

claims

alleged

under

42

U.S.C.

§

1983.

However,

the

movants have not shown that the motion is authorized by Rule
12(f);

therefore,

the

motion

is

denied.

See

generally

Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 976 (9th
1

1

Cir. 2010)(“hold[ing] that Rule 12(f) . . . does not authorize a

2

district court to dismiss a claim for damages on the basis it is

3

precluded as a matter of law.”).

4

Dated:

January 14, 2015

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2