Lofton v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC
Filing
31
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 28 Motion to Strike Answer, Granting Leave to File Amended Answer, Setting Case Management Conference. The Court VACATES the hearing set for May 27, 2014. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
JOHN LOFTON,
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
ANSWER, GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED ANSWER, SETTING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW) LLC,
Defendant.
16
17
Case No.: 13-cv-5665 YGR
I.
BACKGROUND
18
Plaintiff John Lofton's operative Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A ("TAC"))
19
alleges that, in June 2012, he received two calls on his cell phone from third-party debt collector
20
Collecto, Inc. On the calls, Collecto sought to collect an unpaid bill for cell phone services supplied
21
by defendant Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC. Plaintiff alleges, however, that he is, and was, not a
22
Verizon customer and that Collecto called seeking somebody other than Plaintiff—in short, that
23
Collecto had a wrong number. The gravamen of the complaint is that Collecto recorded the calls
24
without plaintiff's express prior consent and that Verizon, because it used Collecto as its agent, is
25
liable for that conduct. The TAC asserts three claims: two under California statutes, namely, the
26
Invasion of Privacy Act, CAL. PENAL CODE § 632.7, and the Unfair Competition Law, CAL. BUS. &
27
PROF. CODE § 17200 et seq., and a third under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
28
U.S.C. § 227 et seq. Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes of similarly situated individuals—a
1
California class proceeding under California law and a national class proceeding under federal law—
2
and prays for statutory penalties, equitable and injunctive relief, and prevailing-party attorney fees
3
and costs. It bears emphasis that plaintiff filed this case nearly two years ago (see Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 2-
4
3), and the parties appear to have yet to complete discovery (see Dkt. Nos. 9, 13-2).
5
Notwithstanding the slow progress of this litigation, now before the Court is a challenge to
6
the pleadings. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), plaintiff moves to strike portions
7
of Verizon's Answer to the TAC. (Dkt. Nos. 24 ("Answer"), 28 ("Mot.").) With its opposition,
8
Verizon filed a Proposed Amended Answer, seeking leave to file it as the operative responsive
9
pleading. (Dkt. No. 29 ("Opp'n"), Ex. A ("Prop. Am. Answer").) Plaintiff's reply brief directs its
10
argument to the Proposed Amended Answer, acknowledging that the Proposed Amended Answer
11
moots some but not all of the arguments in his Motion.
As set forth below more specifically, the Court exercises its discretion and DENIES plaintiff's
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
13
Motion, and GRANTS Verizon's request to file an amended answer.1 Plaintiff has failed to persuade
14
the Court that it should exercise its discretion to grant his Rule 12(f) motion, which serves merely to
15
protract rather than to streamline this litigation. Pursuant to its Order of January 2, 2014 (Dkt. No.
16
11), the Court SETS a Case Management Conference for June 23, 2014.
17
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A court "may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant,
18
19
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). "The function of a [Rule]
20
12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating
21
spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . ." Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft
22
Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th
23
Cir. 1993) rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994)). "Motions to strike 'are generally
24
disfavored because they are often used as delaying tactics and because of the limited importance of
25
pleadings in federal practice.'" Shaterian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 829 F. Supp. 2d 873, 879 (N.D.
26
Cal. 2011) (quoting Rosales v. Citibank, Fed. Sav. Bank, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal.
27
1
28
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this
motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing
set for May 27, 2014.
2
1
2001)). Given the disfavored status of Rule 12(f) motions, "courts often require a showing of
2
prejudice by the moving party before granting the requested relief." Sanchez v. City of Fresno, 914
3
F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1122 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting California Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v.
4
Alco Pac., Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). "If there is any doubt whether the
5
portion to be stricken might bear on an issue in the litigation, the court should deny the motion."
6
Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 925, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting
7
Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004)). Whether to
8
grant a motion to strike is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court. See
9
Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 973 (citing Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 2000)).
10
11
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff brings a variety of challenges to defendant's Answer and Proposed Amended
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
Answer, at significant expense to the Court and the parties, and without specifically articulating
13
significant prejudice. Many of plaintiff's challenges amount to little more than hypertechnical
14
criticisms of purported defects of pleading formality. Although language disapproving of these
15
defects may be culled from the opinions of some district courts, in the circumstances of this
16
litigation they do not persuade the Court to exercise its discretion to grant plaintiff's Motion.
17
The only portion of plaintiff's Motion with significant force is the portion attacking the
18
Answer's fifth, tenth, and fifteenth affirmative defenses on the basis that, prior to removal of this
19
action, the state court allegedly deemed them insufficient. (Mot. at 2-4; Reply at 2-3.) Such a ruling
20
by the state court, if evident in the record, would constitute good cause to strike the insufficient
21
defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Here, however, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion with respect to
22
those defenses because, although plaintiff purports to quote the state court's rulings (see Mot. at 3,
23
Reply at 3), he neglected to supply either true and correct copies of the purported rulings of which
24
the Court could take judicial notice, or citation to a publicly available copy of the rulings. Instead,
25
plaintiff cited what appear to be bates-stamped page numbers of his own internal files. The Court is
26
not obligated to scour state-court records to uncover a party's cited authorities. Both parties may rest
27
assured that this Court, as it explained in a prior order (Dkt. No. 11), "treats everything that occurred
28
in the state court as if it had taken place in federal court." Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC,
3
1
629 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Butner v. Neustadter, 324 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir. 1963)).
2
Thus, any rulings of the state court with respect to possible defenses still stand. However, on the
3
record presently before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that the state court indeed made the
4
rulings plaintiff claims it did.
The Court has considered the remainder of plaintiff's attacks on the Answer, as well as the
5
6
Proposed Amended Answer, and concludes that the defects they identify either may have some
7
impact on the outcome of the litigation, do not rise to the level of the colorably prejudicial, or do not
8
otherwise warrant striking. Plaintiff does not establish that any of the asserted defenses are legally
9
insufficient, nor that any of the allegations are redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.
of form are particularly misplaced. (E.g., Mot. at 15.) Part of the reason Rule 12(f) motions are
12
Northern District of California
Plaintiff's requests to have certain factual matters deemed admitted in light of purported deficiencies
11
United States District Court
10
disfavored is because of the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits, as opposed to,
13
e.g., formalities. CAL. PRAC. GUIDE FED. CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL § 9:375. Plaintiff's requests to
14
deem matters admitted runs counter to that laudable policy. Moreover, the purpose of Rule 12(f)
15
motions is to minimize litigation, not to compound it. Plaintiff's motion itself patently entails the
16
very "expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues" that Rule 12(f)
17
is meant to forestall. Cf. Fantasy, Inc., 984 F.2d at 1527.
18
IV.
19
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of plaintiff John Lofton to strike the Answer to the
20
Third Amended Complaint of defendant Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC is DENIED. Defendant has
21
leave to file an Amended Answer to the Third Amended Complaint, consistent with the guidance
22
herein, within three business days of the signature date of this Order.
23
The Court SETS a Case Management Conference in this matter on its 2:00 p.m. Calendar on
24
Monday, June 23, 2014, in Courtroom 1 of the United States Courthouse located at 1301 Clay
25
Street in Oakland, California. The parties shall file a joint case management conference statement at
26
least five business days in advance of the Case Management Conference. The statement must
27
include all elements requested in the “Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of
28
California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement.”
4
1
As set forth in the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases, these conferences are intended to
2
be substantive and productive. Accordingly, each party shall be represented at the Case
3
Management Conference by counsel with authority to enter into stipulations and make admissions
4
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a) and (c), as well as fully prepared to address all of
5
the matters referred to in the CAND CMC Order and Civil Local Rule 16-10(b). Failure to do so
6
shall be considered grounds for sanctions.
7
This Order terminates Dkt. No. 28.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
11
Date: May 23, 2014
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?