Blandino v. MCM Construction, Inc.

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 5 Motion to Strike (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. C 12-1729 PJH

ERICK J. BLANDINO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
MCM CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/

17
18

The motion of plaintiff Erick J. Blandino to strike the answer filed by defendant MCM

19

Construction, Inc. (“MCM’”) came on for hearing before this court on June 6, 2012. Plaintiff

20

appeared by his counsel David S. Harris, and MCM appeared by its counsel G. Daniel

21

Newland. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and considered the arguments of

22

counsel and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules

23

as follows for the reasons stated at the hearing.

24

The court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing that the answer

25

must be stricken for failure to provide fair notice. Plaintiff argues that each of MCM’s

26

defenses are insufficiently pled, yet, plaintiff actually addresses only four of MCM’s fifty-

27

seven defenses. The court encourages MCM to take a reasonable approach

28

moving forward and whittle down its defenses where appropriate. However, considering

1

plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the insufficiency of each of MCM’s defenses, plaintiff’s

2

motion to strike MCM’s answer is DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: June 13, 2012
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2