Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD
Filing
209
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED ANSWER. by Judge Richard Seeborg (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2011)
**E-filed 5/2/11*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
INTERSERVE, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
13
14
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE AMENDED ANSWER
FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD,
15
No. C 09-5812 RS
Defendant.
____________________________________/
16
17
Defendant previously filed an answer and declaratory relief counterclaim that began with a
18
ten page “prefatory statement” describing the circumstances that led to this litigation from
19
defendant’s point of view. Plaintiff filed a noticed motion to strike portions of the prefatory
20
statement and to dismiss the counterclaim. Without waiting for opposition, on March 28, 2011, the
21
Court issued an order striking the prefatory statement in its entirety on its own motion, both because
22
such a statement is not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and because it included
23
unnecessarily inflammatory language. The March 28th order also gave defendant the option of
24
either opposing the motion to dismiss the counterclaim or dismissing it without prejudice. The
25
order specifically noted that it was issued in an effort, “[t]o minimize the degree to which party and
26
court resources are further expended on matters collateral to resolution of the actual disputes
27
between them.”
28
In response, defendant filed an amended answer that omits the prefatory statement and the
1
2
counterclaim, but which makes certain changes to the text of the answer, including incorporating
3
limited portions of the material that originally appeared in the prefatory statement. Plaintiff now
4
moves to strike the amended answer on grounds that defendant was not granted leave to amend, and
5
has included material that was ordered stricken. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this motion is
6
suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for June 9, 2011 is vacated.1
In preparing its amended answer, defendant went beyond the letter of the March 28th order
7
mentioned “colorful language” in the prefatory language as objectionable and did not strike any
10
portion of the body of the answer, defendant made several edits to the answer that appear to have
11
For the Northern District of California
to make efforts to comply with its spirit as well. For example, although the order only expressly
9
United States District Court
8
been designed to delete inflammatory wording or replace it with more neutral allegations, and
12
otherwise to present a more measured tone. See e.g. ¶ 4 (deleting the modifiers “cherry-picked,”
13
“completely,” and “very real”); ¶ 81 (substituting the word “temper” for the phrase, “propensity to
14
‘go all nuclear’”). While room for disagreement may still exist as to whether defendant has
15
eliminated all extraneous rhetoric, these modifications demonstrate a responsiveness to the concerns
16
identified in the March 28 order that is commendable.
17
Plaintiff’s objection that the amendments to the answer include material from the prefatory
18
statement that was ordered stricken is not well taken. As noted, the basis of the order to strike was
19
both that some of the language in the prefatory statement was intemperate, and that the rules do not
20
provide for inclusion of such a statement, regardless of its language. Defendant did not retain the
21
intemperate language, and indeed removed or minimized other verbiage in the answer that was
22
subject to similar criticism. It may be true that the rules also do not contemplate affirmative
23
allegations like those made by defendant even within the body of an answer, but as amended, the
24
answer’s use of that device is not so egregious as to warrant a motion to strike. Furthermore, while
25
plaintiff may be technically correct that defendant was not expressly given leave to amend its
26
answer, it was not a wholly-unreasonable decision for defendant to choose that vehicle for
27
28
1
In light of the disposition of this order, and the interest in preserving resources, it is also
appropriate to decide the motion without waiting for opposition to be filed.
2
1
exercising its option under the March 28 order to dismiss the counterclaim, and the amendments are
2
not otherwise objectionable.
More fundamentally, plaintiff has failed to appreciate the additional message of the March
3
4
28 order that it serves no legitimate purpose to expend client resources and the taxpayer-funded
5
resources of the court engaging in disputes over technical or collateral matters that cannot possibly
6
facilitate the eventual resolution of this litigation or any portion of it. The motion to strike is
7
denied.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Dated: 5/2/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?