Fariba Rahimian Marnani v. Mezzetti Financial Services, Inc., et al

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 22 Motion to Strike (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

FARIBA RAHIMIAN MARNANI,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Case No.: 14-CV-04743-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE

v.
MEZZETTI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
a California corporation; JOSE MEZZETTI
individually and in his official capacity;
HOLMES & USOZ LLP, a California
limited liability partnership; and LESLIE
HOLMES, individually and in her official
capacity,
Defendants.

20
21

On January 9, 2015, Defendants filed three separate Answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

22

ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike all of the affirmative

23

defenses contained in each of Defendants’ Answers. ECF No. 22. According to the text

24

accompanying electronic docket number 22, Defendants’ Oppositions to Plaintiff’s motion were

25

due by February 13, 2015. Defendants filed none.

26

On February 24, 2015—eleven days after Defendants’ Oppositions were due—Plaintiff

27
28

1
Case No.: 14-CV-04743-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

1

filed a Statement of No Opposition, indicating that “Plaintiff’s counsel has not been served with

2

any opposition to the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses Contained in Defendants’ Answers

3

(Doc. 22) filed herein on January 30, 2015” and requesting “that the Court grant [Plaintiff’s]

4

Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses Contained in Defendants’ Answers immediately and

5

without a hearing.” ECF No. 24. To date, Defendants have not filed any Opposition to Plaintiff’s

6

Motion to Strike.

7

“A court must consider the following five factors before striking a pleading or declaring
default: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

9

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the other party; (4) the public policy favoring the

10

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Hester v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

Vision Airlines, Inc., 687 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

12

Factors one, two, three, and five all favor granting Plaintiff’s motion. The public’s interest in the

13

expeditious resolution of cases and the Court’s need to manage its docket are best served by

14

granting Plaintiff’s unopposed motion now, rather than waiting until after the hearing date set for

15

May 21, 2015—three months from today. Further, the risk of prejudice to Defendants is low

16

because the Court will allow Defendants leave to file amended Answers.

17

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Strike and,

18

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), VACATES the motion hearing set for May 21, 2015, at 1:30

19

p.m. See Bd. of Trs. of Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund for N. Cal. v. Kudsk Const., Inc.,

20

No. C 12-165 CW, 2012 WL 3010981, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2012) (granting the plaintiffs’

21

unopposed motion to strike the defendants’ answer). Defendants may file amended Answers

22

within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. See Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan-

23

Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1176 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (granting motion to strike

24

affirmative defenses but allowing leave for the defendant to file an amended answer).

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

2
Case No.: 14-CV-04743-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

1

Dated: February 24, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No.: 14-CV-04743-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE