Wailea Partners, LP v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 37 Motion to Strike (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 10 11 12 WAILEA PARTNERS, LP, ) Case No. 11-CV-3544 SC a Delaware limited partnership, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO STRIKE ) v. ) ) HSBC BANK USA, N.A., ) a national banking association, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Wailea Partners, LP's, 14 15 ("Plaintiff") Motion to Strike portions of Defendant HSBC Bank USA, 16 N.A.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss. 17 ("MTD"). 18 improper. 19 ECF Nos. 37 ("MTS"), 23 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is DENIED as procedurally Plaintiff asks the Court to strike references to "premiums" in 20 Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the 21 transactions at issue in this case did not involve premiums. 22 at 4. 23 may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any 24 redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." 25 Plaintiff's MTS is improper under Rule 12(f) because a motion to 26 dismiss is not a pleading. 27 "pleading" as a complaint, an answer to a complaint, an answer to a 28 counterclaim, an answer to a crossclaim, a third-party complaint, MTS Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), "[t]he court See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (defining 1 an answer to a third-party complaint, and a reply to an answer); 2 see also McCain v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3 69690, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2011) (denying plaintiff's 4 motion to strike defendant's motion to dismiss because "Rule 12(f) 5 may be used to strike 'pleadings,' and a motion is not a 6 'pleading'"). 7 The arguments set forth in Plaintiff's MTS should have been 8 included in Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's MTD. 9 declines to construe Plaintiff's MTS as a supplemental Opposition The Court United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 because Plaintiff's Opposition already meets the maximum page limit 11 set by Civil Local Rule 7-4(b). ECF No. 35 ("Pl's Opp'n to MTD"). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: November 14, 2011 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?