Barrilleaux v. Mendicino County et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 27 Plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses and ORDER requiring declarations re: General Order 56. Declarations and, if appropriate, stipulation and proposed order due by 09/29/14. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 09/17/14. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

JESSICA BARRILLEAUX,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

v.
MENDOCINO COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01373-TEH
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES AND ORDER REQUIRING
DECLARATIONS RE: GENERAL
ORDER 56

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jessica Barrilleaux’s motion to

13

strike affirmative defenses from the answer filed by Defendants Superior Court of

14

California, Mendocino County; and Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office

15

of the Courts. The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument

16

and hereby VACATES the October 6, 2014 motion hearing.

17

Plaintiff’s motion appears to have some merit, as “every judge in this district to

18

have taken up the issue has concluded that [Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and

19

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)] apply to the pleading of affirmative

20

defenses,” Hernandez v. Dutch Goose, Inc., Case No. C13-3537 LB, 2013 WL 5781476, at

21

*4 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013) (citing cases from nineteen different judges, including this

22

Court), and the challenged affirmative defenses do not appear to meet the relevant

23

standard. However, the Court finds it premature to rule on Plaintiff’s motion given the

24

stage of these proceedings and the applicability of Northern District of California General

25

Order 56 to this case. As another judge in this district recently explained:
Requiring Defendants to re-plead their affirmative defenses
now will not further the resolution of Plaintiff’s claims, nor
does it impede Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute [her] case.
Northern District of California General Order 56 sets in place
expedited deadlines and procedures for the resolution of
Americans with Disabilities Act access litigation. Paragraph 2

26
27
28

4

of General Order 56 pertains to the parties’ Rule 26 initial
disclosures: should a defendant intend to dispute liability,
he/she is required to provide all information in his/her control
relating to that defense by a particular date. Requiring
Defendants to re-plead their affirmative defenses at this
juncture will [serve] only to embroil the parties and this Court
in needless motion practice, which General Order 56 was
designed to avoid.

5

Rodgers v. Claim Jumper Rest., LLC, Case No. 13-CV-5496 YGR, 2014 WL 1760959, at

6

*2 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2014). This Court fully agrees. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore

7

DENIED without prejudice to re-filing if the parties are unable to settle this case on their

8

own or through mediation.

1
2
3

In addition, although Plaintiff refers to General Order 56 in her motion papers, it is

9

unclear whether the parties have fully complied with the order’s requirements and the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

related scheduling deadlines set forth in the March 26, 2014 scheduling order (“Scheduling

12

Order”). Under the Scheduling Order, the parties were to have completed a joint site

13

inspection no later than July 8, 2014, with initial disclosures due seven days prior, and

14

have met and conferred in person to discuss settlement within 28 business days thereafter.

15

Plaintiff was required to file a notice of need for mediation within 42 days of the joint site

16

inspection, or August 19, 2014, if the parties were unable to resolve the matter. No such

17

filing has been received, and it is possible that the parties have failed to comply with any

18

of the provisions of General Order 56 and the Scheduling Order.
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to file, on or before September 29, 2014,

19
20

declarations affirming that they have read and understood the provisions of General Order

21

56 and the Scheduling Order, and discussing whether they have complied with any of

22

those provisions. If they have not complied with all provisions, then the parties shall, by

23

the same date, submit a stipulation and proposed order – or separate statements to the

24

Court if agreement cannot be reached – with new dates to comply with each missed

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
2

1

deadline contained in the Scheduling Order. The Court opts not to impose any sanctions at

2

this time but may do so for any future violations.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: 09/17/14

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3