Sassman v. Brown et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/29/14 ORDERING Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 20 is GRANTED, but with leave to amend. Any amended answer must be filed not later than ten (10) days following the date this Order is electronically filed. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

WILLIAM SASSMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor
of California, and JEFFREY A. BEARD,
Secretary of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in
their official capacities, and DOES 110,
Defendants.

18
19

No. 2:14-cv-01679-MCE-KJN

William Sassman (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Governor of California, and Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, in their official capacities (collectively “Defendants”), and
Does 1-10. Plaintiff claims Defendants’ exclusion of men from California’s Alternative
Custody Program (“ACP”), as authorized by California Penal Code section 1170.05,
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Presently before
the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)
all of Defendants’ affirmative defenses and Defendants’ demand for jury trial.1 ECF

27
1

28

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise noted.

1

1

No. 20-1. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with leave to

2

amend.2

3
4

ANALYSIS

5
6

Plaintiff moved to strike all seven of the affirmative defenses set forth in

7

Defendants’ answer, ECF No. 9, and Defendants’ demand for a jury trial. In response,

8

Defendants agreed to withdraw three of their defenses and their jury trial demand. ECF

9

No. 28. Defendants seek leave to amend their remaining defenses.3

10

The Court may strike “from any pleading any insufficient defense or any

11

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “[T]he

12

function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that

13

must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to

14

trial . . . .” Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983).

15

“Immaterial matter is that which has no essential or important relationship to the claim for

16

relief or the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527

17

(9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (internal citations and

18

quotations omitted). “Impertinent matter consists of statements that do not pertain, and

19

are not necessary, to the issues in question.” Id.

20

The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that a court may not resolve factual or legal

21

issues when deciding a motion to strike; rather, an assessment of the sufficiency of the

22

allegations should be left for adjudication on the merits. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft

23

Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir.2010). Leave to amend should be freely given when a

24

claim is stricken, provided no prejudice results against the opposing party. Wyshak v.

25

City Nat. Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir. 1979).

26
27

2

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted
on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g).
3

28

According to Defendants, they sought to obtain a stipulation from Plaintiff to amend their answer,
but no agreement from Plaintiff in that regard was forthcoming. ECF No. 28 at 7.

2

1

Defendants concede that Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted in part by

2

withdrawing a number of their defenses and their jury demand. They also tacitly admit

3

that a number of their remaining defenses may be stricken by omitting any argument that

4

they are sufficient as pled and seeking only leave to amend. Even in instances where

5

Defendants appear to believe their current allegations are sufficient, they nonetheless

6

propose amendments to add additional facts. In fact, Defendants seek leave to amend

7

all of their remaining defenses. As such, the bulk of the parties’ arguments turn on the

8

sufficiency of Defendants’ proposed amended pleading. It is premature for this Court to

9

consider the parties’ arguments that are directed at that not-yet-filed document, since no

10

leave to amend has yet been granted. In the meantime, to the extent Plaintiff contends

11

that further amendment would be futile, that argument is rejected.

12

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED, but with leave

13

to amend.4 Any amended answer must be filed not later than ten (10) days following the

14

date this Order is electronically filed.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 29, 2014

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4

28

Once Defendants’ amended answer is filed Plaintiff may, should he choose to, attack that
document directly.

3