Morgenstein v. AT&T Mobility, LLC

Filing 46

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 7 Motion to Remand; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 10 Motion to Strike (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2009) Modified on 12/30/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 DAVID MORGENSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. 9 AT&T MOBILITY LLC, a Delaware corporation, 10 and DOES 1-50, inclusive 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The parties appeared before the Court on December 8, 2009, for Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Action to State Court and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant AT&T Mobility's Answer to the Complaint. Having reviewed the papers submitted, considered the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Action to State Court is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant AT&T Mobility's Answer to the Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's general denial is GRANTED. Defendant shall, if it has not already done so, file an amended complaint within 5 days of this order that conforms with FRCP 8(b)(3); and b. Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's affirmative defenses is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendant. Case No: C 09-03173 SBA ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT AT&T MOBILITY'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT [Docket Nos. 7, 10] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Dated:_12/22/09

____________________________ Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge