Mesi et al v. Select Portfolio Servicing et al

Filing 17

ORDER - DENIED ECF No. 5 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 08/23/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

1
2
3
4

ERIC MESI AND BETTY MESI,
Plaintiffs,

5

vs.

6
7

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING et al.,

8

Defendants.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:16-cv-00065-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

10

This case arises out of a disputed property foreclosure. Defendant Select Portfolio

11
12
13

Servicing (“SPS”) moves the Court to strike the Complaint in this case “because it is redundant
of the claims raised before this Court in the case designated as Case No. 16-CV-00052.” (Mot.,

14
15

1, ECF No. 5; see also id. at 4–5). However, case number 16-CV-00052 was the number of this

16

case in Nevada State Court before it was removed to this Court. (See Compl., 1, ECF No. 1-1).

17

Thus, SPS moves the Court to strike the Complaint in this case because it is redundant with

18

itself, which, of course, is nonsensical. The Court presumes that SPS intends to refer to a

19

different case, but the Court will not speculate as to which case it is. The Court denies the motion
20
21

but invites SPS, if it wishes, to file a renewed motion that includes the proper case numbers.1

22

///

23

///

24

///

25
26
27
28

1

The Court also notes that Rule 12(f) is likely not the proper vehicle for this motion. A motion
and analysis under Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688–92 (9th Cir.
2007) (addressing duplicative complaints), might be more appropriate, depending on what SPS
wishes to accomplish.
1

CONCLUSION

1
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 5) is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 16th day of August, 2016.
23rd day of August, 2016.

5
6
7

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

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

2