Joe Hand Promotions Inc v. Nguyen

Filing 40

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 20 Motion to Strike as Moot. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
NGOC HA T. NGUYEN, individually and d/b/a )
VI SAO CAFÉ, a/k/a SAO RESTAURANT,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,

Case No.: 11-CV-0506-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT

Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., filed its Complaint on February 2, 2011, to which

18

Defendant Ngoc Ha T. Nguyen filed a one-sentence Answer Presenting Defenses Under Rule 12(b)

19

on March 22, 2011. See ECF No. 1 and 5. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer

20

with leave to amend on July 19, 2011. See ECF No. 13.

21

Defendant filed a First Amended Answer to Complaint on August 16, 2011, which included

22

sixteen affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a cause of action; (2) lack of subject matter

23

jurisdiction; (3) lack of standing; (4) statute of limitations, doctrine of laches; (5) failure to

24

mitigate; (6) waiver; (7) entrapment by estoppel; (8) comparative fault; (9) estoppel; (10)

25

intervening acts; (11) alleged actions were not intentional; (12) lack of proximate cause; (13) undue

26

hardship; (14) undue penalty; (15) unclean hands; (16) unjust enrichment. See ECF No. 18. On

27

September 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Defendant’s

28

Affirmative Defenses with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities seeking to strike each of
1

Case No.: 11-CV-00506-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT

1

Plaintiff’s sixteen affirmative defenses for failure to satisfy the legal standard necessary to sustain

2

any of these affirmative defenses. See ECF No. 20. However, on October 13, 2011, the Court

3

appointed pro bono counsel for Defendant, Attorney Sayuri K. Sharper, who then, with permission

4

of Plaintiff, filed Defendant’s Second Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. See ECF No. 34

5

and 35. Defendant’s Second Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint contains only three

6

affirmative defenses: (1) lack of knowledge; (2) improper double recovery; and (3) cumulative

7

damages. See ECF No. 35. Since none of these affirmative defenses are addressed in Plaintiff’s

8

Motion to Strike, Plaintiff’s Motion is mooted by Defendant’s Second Amended Answer.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion as moot. Accordingly, the hearing on the
motion set for December 1, 2011, is hereby VACATED.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: November 22, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

Case No.: 11-CV-00506-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT