J&J Sports Productions, Inc v. Trujillo

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 13 Motion to Strike (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Mailing) (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
JOSEFINA TRUJILLO A/K/A JOSEFINA A. )
TRUJILLO, INDIVIDUALLY and d/b/a THE )
ROUNDUP A/K/A PARAISO NIGHT CLUB, )
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01159-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Plaintiff J&J Sports Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Josefina

18

Trujillo a/k/a Josefina A. Trujillo d/b/a The Roundup, aka Paraiso Night Club (“Defendant”) on

19

March 10, 2011. Defendant filed a proof of service indicating that Defendant had filed the Answer

20

on Plaintiff. See ECF No. 12. Defendant has never filed the Answer with the Court.

21

Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the affirmative defenses in Defendant’s Answer on July 19,

22

2011. A case management conference was held on July 27, 2011, at which Defendant failed to

23

appear. At the case management conference, Defendant was ordered to (1) file a copy of her

24

Answer by August 3, 2011, and (2) respond to Plaintiff’s motion to strike by August 5, 2011.

25

Defendant has, to date, failed to comply with both court orders. Plaintiff filed a status report on

26

October 5, 2011 indicating that he had not yet been in contact with Defendant, and that Defendant

27

had never, in fact, served Plaintiff with a copy of Defendant’s Answer. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff

28

offered no explanation as to why, if Plaintiff was never served with the Answer, Plaintiff filed a
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01159-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

1

motion to strike affirmative defenses. On October 5, 2011, Plaintiff also moved for an entry of

2

default in this case. ECF No. 20.

3

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike, set for hearing on October 13, 2011.

4

The Defendant has yet to file, and apparently serve, her Answer. Therefore, the motion to strike is

5

premature, and is DENIED without prejudice. The hearing set for October 13, 2011 is

6

VACATED.

7

A further case management conference is set for January 11, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. If

8

Defendant moves for an entry of default judgment, the case management conference will be reset

9

to the hearing date set for the entry of default judgment.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: October 6, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01159-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE