Reed v. Avis Budget Group Inc

Filing 9

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 4 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), Defendant Avis Budget Group moves to strike the words "seeking reasonable accommodation of her disabilities," from paragraph fifteen of Plaintiff Eleanor Reed's complaint. This paragraph states, Despite Defendant's knowledge that Plaintiff had complied with the notice, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment in retaliation for Plaintiff having engaged in protected activity, to wit: seeking reasonable accommodation of her disability and complaining of disability and race discrimination. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a party may move to strike "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter." The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid Fantasy, Inc. v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, Defendant. / ELEANOR REED, Plaintiff, FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 09-01480 CW ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

spending time and money litigating spurious issues.

v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), reversed on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). Motions to strike are disfavored 2 Moore's Federal

because they constitute a drastic remedy.

Practice, § 12.37[1] (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1997); Resolution Trust

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Corp. v. Vanderweele, 833 F. Supp. 1383, 1387 (N.D. Ind. 1993); Clement v. Am. Greetings Corp., 636 F. Supp. 1326, 1332 (S.D. Cal. 1986). Decisions to grant motions to strike lie within the Moore's Federal Practice, § 12.37[1]; von

discretion of the court.

Bulow v. von Bulow, 657 F. Supp. 1134, 1146 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). Plaintiff is suing under Government Code § 12940(h), which states that it is unlawful for an employer to discharge or discriminate against any person because the person "has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part." To constitute opposition of a forbidden practice, an

employee need not explicitly tell an employer that the employee's conduct is in opposition to a forbidden practice in order to establish a prima facie case under § 12940(h). USA, Inc., 36 Cal. 4th 1028, 1046 (2005). FEHA requires the employer to "engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations . . ." § 12940(n). Cal. Gov't. Code Yanowitz v. L'Oreal

Here, Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated in

retaliation for complaining about the denial of her accommodation request. Such a complaint may constitute an opposition as Accordingly, the Court denies

contemplated by § 12940(h). Defendant's motion. p.m. is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 5/11/09

The hearing scheduled for May 21, 2009 at 2:00

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

2