F. et al v. Blue Shield of California et al

Filing 156

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 152 Motion to Strike (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

DANIEL F., et al.,

13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.

15

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

16

No. C 09-2037 PJH

Defendants.
_______________________________/

17
18

Before the court is the motion of defendant Blue Shield of California ("Blue Shield")

19

for an order striking plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. Having read the

20

parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority,

21

the court finds that the motion must be DENIED.

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the court “may order stricken

23

from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

24

scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to

25

avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by

26

dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . .” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618

27

F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation and citation omitted). In order to determine

28

whether to grant a motion to strike under Rule 12(f), the court must determine whether the

1

matter the moving party seeks to have stricken is (1) an insufficient defense; (2) redundant;

2

(3) immaterial; (4) impertinent; or (5) scandalous. Id. at 973-74.

3

Here, the matter Blue Shield seeks to have stricken is a renewed motion for class

4

certification. Plaintiffs originally sought class certification in a motion filed May 2, 2014

5

(Doc. 127). The court denied the motion in an order issued August 11, 2014 (Doc. 142). At

6

the October 2, 2014 further case management conference, the court set various pretrial

7

deadlines, including a February 25, 2015 deadline for filing dispositive motions (Doc. 145).

8

The court did not set any dates for the pretrial conference or trial. The deadline for filing

9

dispositive motions was subsequently continued to March 27, 2015, pursuant to stipulation
and order (Doc. 147). On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

certification (Doc. 148). Blue Shield argues that the motion should be stricken because

12

plaintiffs filed the motion without notice and without first seeking leave of court.

13

The court finds no basis for striking the motion. Rule 12(f) is inapplicable, as the

14

motion is not a pleading, and Blue Shield does not claim that it is an insufficient defense,

15

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. Blue Shield contends that the March

16

27, 2015 deadline was intended to be the last day to file dispositive motions, but plaintiffs

17

correctly note that class certification motions are considered dispositive.

18

Blue Shield argues further that the motion was improper because plaintiffs did not

19

seek leave to file a "renewed" motion. Plaintiffs respond that leave of court is not required

20

to file a renewed motion for class certification, and cites cases in which the moving parties

21

did in fact file a "renewed" motion following an initial denial of class certification, without first

22

requesting leave. The court has reviewed those cases, and finds generally that while the

23

moving parties may not have specifically requested leave, the court in most instances

24

either advised filing a "renewed" motion or made clear that a "renewed" motion would not

25

be unwelcome. Here, the court made no such suggestion.

26

Finally, Blue Shield asserts that the "renewed" motion in this case is in essence a

27

motion for reconsideration, and that plaintiffs failed to seek leave of court before filing it, as

28

required by Civil Local Rule 7-9. Here, Blue Shield is on firmer ground, but the court
2

1

nonetheless does not agree that the appropriate remedy is to strike the motion. The court

2

has reviewed the motion and agrees with Blue Shield that it appears to be a motion for

3

reconsideration. Accordingly, in accordance with Local Rule 7-9, plaintiffs must seek leave

4

of court to request reconsideration.

5

In seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the moving party

6
7
8
9

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law
exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the
interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must
show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for
reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory
order; or

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion, and one of
the following:

12

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after
the time of such order; or

14

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive
legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory
order.

15

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). In addition, "[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may

16

repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in

17

opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered." Civ.

18

L.R. 7-9(c).

13

19

Here, plaintiffs have not have not established the required factors. First, they

20

delayed more than seven months before filing the renewed motion, which suggests a

21

certain lack of diligence. More importantly, however, they have not shown that a material

22

difference in fact or law exists from that presented to the court at the time of the original

23

motion, and that they did not know of such fact or law at that time. Nor have they shown

24

the emergence of new facts or law occurring since the time of the original order denying

25

class certification, or a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive

26

legal arguments prior to issuance of the original order.

27

Accordingly, before the court will consider plaintiffs' renewed motion, plaintiffs must,

28

no later than May 29, 2015, file a request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Any
3

1

response by Blue Shield shall be filed no later than June 5, 2015. No reply shall be filed,

2

and no hearing will be held. If that motion is granted, the court will issue an order setting a

3

schedule for the filing of the opposition to the renewed motion for class certification and the

4

reply.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: May 21, 2015
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4