Holt v. US Bank N.A. et al

Filing 69

ORDER Denying 60 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 8/22/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10

RODNEY HOLT,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
U.S. BANK N.A.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00463-KJD-CWH
ORDER

11
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (#60), filed July 9, 2012.
12
This is the fifth motion to strike filed by Plaintiff in this matter.
13
As the Court has previously noted, motions to strike are disfavored. Colaprico v. Sun
14
Microsystems, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D.Cal.1991) (“[M]otions to strike should not be
15
granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject
16
matter of the litigation.”) (citing sources); United States v. 729.773 Acres of Land, More or Less,
17
Situate in City and County of Honolulu, 531 F.Supp. 967, 971 (D.Haw.1982) (“A motion to strike
18
is a severe measure and it is generally viewed with disfavor.”); Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F.Supp.
19
1450, 1478 (C.D.Cal.1996) (“Rule 12(f) motions are generally disfavored because they are often
20
used as delaying tactics, and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice.”)
21
(citations omitted).
22
Here, Plaintiff requests that the Court strike Defendant’s motion to expunge lis pendens
23
(#50) based on the unsubstantiated claim that the motion is “procedurally and substantively
24
unauthorized.” The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has not provided any relevant
25
factual argument to support his request. Plaintiff’s continued attacks directed toward defense
26
counsel are immaterial and, frankly, misplaced. The Court finds no merit to Plaintiff’s claim that
27
defense counsel has impermissibly multiplied proceedings in this case through its motion practice.
28
To the contrary, it appears that if any party is multiplying proceedings in this case it is Plaintiff,

1

who has filed no less than 15 motions in this case (including 5 motions to strike).

2

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (#60) is denied.

4

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2012.

5
6
7

C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2