Levine et al v. Sleep Train, Inc. et al
Filing
23
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/24/2015 GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART 11 Motion to Strike. The motion is GRANTED with respect to the following language, which is hereby STRICKEN from defendants' tenth affirmative def ense: "bona fide" and "but a plaintiff who intentionally stages nuisance lawsuits to extort monetary settlements." The motion is DENIED with respect to the remaining affirmative defenses. Defendants have 90 days from the date of this order to complete necessary discovery to determine whether there is any basis for a good faith belief that their affirmative defenses have merit. Within 120 days, defendants shall file an amended answer. Within 14 days of the filing of the amended answer, plaintiff may file a renewed motion to strike any remaining affirmative defenses. (Donati, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
13
ROBERT LEVINE and VERONICA
GUZMAN,
CIV. NO. 2:15-0002 WBS AC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
TO STRIKE
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16
17
18
v.
THE SLEEP TRAIN, INC.; LIVE
NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;
COASTAL BREEZE LIMOUSINE,
LLC; BGE YUBA, LLC; and DOES
1-20, inclusive,
19
Defendants.
20
----oo0oo----
21
22
Plaintiff Robert Levine, a disabled person, and his
23
fiancée, plaintiff Veronica Guzman, attended a concert at the
24
Sleep Train Amphitheater on July 25, 2014.
25
No. 1).)
26
accessible parking as required by federal and state anti-
27
discrimination laws.
28
(Compl. ¶ 1 (Docket
Plaintiffs allege the facility did not provide disabled
(Id. ¶¶ 1-2.)
Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants
1
1
alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
2
several California statutes.
3
answered, asserting thirty affirmative defenses. (See Answer
4
(Docket No. 4).)
5
defenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
6
Defendant Live Nation timely
Plaintiffs moved to strike all thirty of those
After this motion was filed, defendant Sleep Train also
7
answered the Complaint raising identical affirmative defenses.
8
(See Docket No. 13.)
9
at the hearing on March 23, 2015, the court will consider both
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation made
10
Live Nation and Sleep Train’s Answers in ruling on this motion to
11
strike.
12
Rule 12(f) authorizes a court to “strike from a
13
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
14
impertinent, or scandalous matter.”
15
function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure
16
of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues
17
by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . .”
18
Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) (quotation
19
marks, citation, and first alteration omitted), rev’d on other
20
grounds by Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).
21
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
“The
Fantasy,
Because motions to strike are “often used as delaying
22
tactics,” they are “generally disfavored” and are rarely granted
23
in the absence of prejudice to the moving party.
24
Citibank, FSB, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2001); see
25
also N.Y.C. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Berry, 667 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1128
26
(N.D. Cal. 2009) (“Where the moving party cannot adequately
27
demonstrate . . . prejudice, courts frequently deny motions to
28
strike even though the offending matter was literally within one
2
Rosales v.
1
or more of the categories set forth in Rule 12(f).” (citation and
2
internal quotation marks omitted)).
3
“where superfluous pleadings may confuse the jury, or where a
4
party may be required to engage in burdensome discovery around
5
frivolous matters.”
6
2:10-3229 JAM CKD, 2011 WL 5040709, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24,
7
2011) (citations omitted).
8
with a motion to dismiss, the court should view the pleading in
9
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Courts may find prejudice
J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Luhn, Civ. No.
“With a motion to strike, just as
Platte Anchor
10
Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal.
11
2004).
12
Defendants’ tenth affirmative defense is “unclean
13
hands.”
Defendants allege that “plaintiffs’ claims are barred
14
under the doctrine of unclean hands because plaintiffs are not a
15
bona fide customer, but a plaintiff who intentionally stages
16
nuisance lawsuits to extort monetary settlements.”
17
10.)
(Answer ¶
Plaintiffs’ motion to strike this defense is well taken.
18
“Scandalous matter” within the meaning or Rule 12(f)
19
“includes allegations that cast a cruelly derogatory light on a
20
party or other person.”
21
114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
22
the accusation that plaintiffs are engaging in extortion is
23
scandalous.
24
fide” and “but a plaintiff who intentionally stages nuisance
25
lawsuits to extort monetary settlements” from defendants’
26
Answers.
27
barred under the doctrine of unclean hands because plaintiffs are
28
not a customer.”
In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Secs. Litig.,
The court agrees that
The court will accordingly strike the words “bona
The remaining allegation reads: “Plaintiffs’ claims are
3
1
Plaintiffs move to strike all of defendants’ remaining
2
defenses on the bases that they are not technically affirmative
3
defenses, are insufficiently plead, and/or are immaterial to the
4
action.
5
boilerplate.
6
that they will suffer any real prejudice from those defenses
7
remaining in the Answer.
8
situation where the court should grant a motion to strike in the
9
absence of prejudice to plaintiffs.
Defendants’ defenses do appear to be conclusory and
However, plaintiffs have not convinced the court
Neither is this an extraordinary
See Rosales, 133 F. Supp. 2d
10
at 1180.
11
argument that defendants should not be permitted to proceed
12
forward with affirmative defenses which they have no reason to
13
believe are supported in law or fact.
14
There is nevertheless some merit to plaintiffs’
Accordingly, the court will allow defendants a limited
15
time to investigate whether there is a factual and legal basis
16
for their affirmative defenses before requiring that any of those
17
defenses be stricken from the Answer.
18
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED
19
(1) that plaintiffs’ motion to strike be, and the same
20
hereby is, GRANTED in part, with respect to the following
21
language, which is hereby STRICKEN from defendants’ tenth
22
affirmative defense: “bona fide” and “but a plaintiff who
23
intentionally stages nuisance lawsuits to extort monetary
24
settlements;”
25
(2) that plaintiffs’ motion to strike be, and the same
26
hereby is, DENIED with respect to the remaining affirmative
27
defenses;
28
(3) that defendants shall have 90 days from the date
4
1
this Order is signed to complete all necessary discovery in order
2
to determine whether there is any basis for a good faith belief
3
that their affirmative defenses have merit.
4
means that such discovery shall have been conducted so that all
5
necessary depositions have been taken and interrogatories have
6
been answered, and any disputes relevant to that discovery shall
7
have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where
8
discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed.
9
motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate
The word “complete”
All
10
judge’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court
11
and so that such motions may be heard (and any resulting orders
12
obeyed) by the time set forth in this Order;
13
(4) that within 120 days from the date of this Order,
14
defendants shall file an Amended Answer which eliminates all
15
affirmative defenses which defendants do not have an honest, good
16
faith belief may be supported by specific facts and applicable
17
law; and
18
(5) that within fourteen days from the filing of
19
defendants’ Amended Answer, plaintiffs may file a renewed motion
20
to strike any remaining affirmative defenses.
21
Dated:
March 24, 2015
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?