J & J Sport Productions, Inc., v. Campos et al

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Granting 33 Motion to Strike (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2010)

J & J Sport Productions, Inc., v. Campos et al

Doc. 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. GENARO MATA CAMPOS, et al., Defendant(s). _______________________________/ Before the court is the motion of plaintiff to strike the five affirmative defenses asserted by defendants in their answer. The motion is fully briefed and the court has reviewed all of the papers filed by the parties and determines that no hearing is necessary. Accordingly, the January 5, 2011 hearing date is VACATED and the court rules as follows. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the court "may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial...." Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation and citation omitted). In order to determine whether to grant a motion to strike under Rule 12(f), the court must determine whether the matter the moving party seeks to have stricken is (1) an insufficient defense; (2) redundant; (3) immaterial; (4) impertinent; or (5) scandalous. Id. at 973-74. Plaintiff moves on the basis that all affirmative defenses are insufficient in that they do not really amount to affirmative defenses, but are more akin to general denials of liability. Defendants oppose the motion with respect to only their second affirmative J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff(s), No. C 10-1250 PJH ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

defense and the court construes the absence of opposition to the other four as an acknowledgment of their deficiencies. With regard to the second affirmative defense, the court agrees with plaintiff, that it is not really an affirmative defense at all. For the reasons advanced by plaintiff, the court GRANTS the motion to strike all five affirmative defenses as insufficient. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 23, 2010 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2