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)

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