Joe Hand Promotions Inc v. Barry et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying pltf's 15 Motion to strike ; granting dfts' 20 Motion to Amend by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Case No. C12-2236RSL
v.

14
15
16

DEBORAH A. BARRY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO AMEND

17
18
19

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.’s “Motion to

20

Strike Defendants Deborah A. Barry and Erik L. Emert’s Affirmative Defenses,” Dkt. 15, and

21

Defendants Deborah Barry’s and Erik Emert’s (“Defendants”) “Motion to Amend,” Dkt. # 20.

22
23
24
25
26

Having reviewed the parties’ memoranda and supporting documents, and the remainder of the
record, the Court finds as follows:
(1) This dispute arises out of Plaintiff’s alleged contractual right to distribute the UFC
133: Evans v. Ortiz broadcast and Defendants’ alleged unauthorized interception of this

27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
AND GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND - 1

1
2

broadcast via satellite and/or cable in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 and/or § 553. Dkt. # 1 ¶¶ 3.14.7. Defendants’ answer to Plaintiff’s complaint asserts 17 affirmative defenses. Dkt. # 12 at 7-

3
4

8.

5

(2) On April 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses

6

on the grounds that they provide insufficient notice of the facts upon which they are based and

7

assert premature arguments about damages. Dkt. # 15. Shortly thereafter, Defendants sought

8
9

leave to amend their answer to remove some of the previously asserted affirmative defenses and

10

provide additional factual allegations to support the remaining affirmative defenses. Dkt. # 21.

11

Plaintiff has not opposed Defendant’s motion.

12

(3) Once a court has entered a pretrial scheduling order establishing a timetable for

13
14

amendment of pleadings, that scheduling order “controls the subsequent course of the action

15

unless modified by the court.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th

16

Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants’ motion is timely, as the deadline for

17

amending pleadings is October 9, 2013. Dkt. #16. Furthermore, the Court considers Plaintiff’s

18
19

failure to respond to Defendant’s motion “an admission that the motion has merit.” LCR

20

7(b)(2). Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to amend their answer. Plaintiff’s

21

motion to strike is therefore DENIED as moot.

22

(4) Finally, the Court thinks it important to note its discontent with defendants’

23
24

submission of 17 boilerplate affirmative defenses. Dkt. # 12 at 7-8. Asserting affirmative

25

defenses not grounded in fact is disfavored. Furthermore, the Court is concerned that

26

Defendants agreed to amend these defenses only after plaintiff filed this motion. See Dkt. # 15

27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
AND GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND - 2

1
2

at 12-13. The Court reminds counsel that an attorney or party who fails to comply with the
Federal or Local Rules “or who presents to the court unnecessary motions or unwarranted

3
4

opposition to motions. . . or who otherwise so multiplies or obstructs the proceedings in a case”

5

may face sanctions and be required to satisfy personally the unnecessary expense. LCR 11(c).

6

The Court hereby instructs Defendants to review the affirmative defenses set forth in their

7

Amended Answer to determine whether further amendment or withdrawal is necessary. Plaintiff

8
9

may re-file its motion to strike and request its fees should it determine that further revisions are

10

necessary. The Court also urges both parties to cooperate with each other to avoid filing

11

unnecessary motions.

12

For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt. # 15) is DENIED and

13
14
15

Defendants’ motion to amend (Dkt. # 20) is GRANTED.
DATED this 21st day of June, 2013.

16
17

A

18

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
AND GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND - 3