Picard v. ABC Legal Services, Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE 15 AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Ronald M Whyte on 1/5/2015. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

DEREK BRANDON PICARD,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Case No. 14-CV-4618

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE

ABC LEGAL SERVICES, INC., a
Washington corporation, MARCOS
ANTONIO TEJADA, individually and in
his official capacity; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive,

[Re Docket No. 15]

Defendants.
Plaintiff Derek Brandon Picard filed a motion to strike defendants’ answer. Dkt. No. 15

20

(motion). Instead of filing an opposition, defendants filed an amended answer on the day after the

21

opposition to the motion to strike would have been due. Dkt. No. 17 (amended answer). Following

22

receipt of defendants’ amended answer, plaintiff filed a Statement of No Opposition Received,

23

noting that the amended answer was still defective because it “continues to allege defenses which

24

are not actually defenses, and continues to raise immaterial defenses.” Dkt. No. 18 (statement)

25

(footnotes omitted).

26

Although defendants’ answer was technically filed late and defendants should have sought

27

leave of court to amend their answer, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the amended

28

answer cures the pleading issues in the original answer. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
ORDER ON MOTION TO STRIKE
Case No. 14-CV-4618-RMW
LRM

-1-

1

U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662 (2009). Although the amended answer may

2

include improper negative defenses, further motion practice over the amended answer is

3

unnecessary as striking the negative defenses will not preclude the defendants from arguing those

4

defenses in the case. Because the answer meets the relevant pleading standards, plaintiff has fair

5

notice of the relevant defenses. Accordingly, the court enters defendants’ amended answer, Dkt.

6

No. 17, and denies the motion to strike as moot, Dkt. No. 15.

7

SO ORDERED.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: January 5, 2015

_________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER ON MOTION TO STRIKE
Case No. 14-CV-4618-RMW
LRM

-2-