Stark v. GG Homes, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to strike specific paragraphs of Plaintiff's opposition to their Motion to Dismiss and for sanctions. The Court granted the motion to strike in part, denied the motion for sanctions, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended response.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to Strike is granted in part, striking paragraphs 2-23, 26, 28-29, and 46-47 of Plaintiff's Response and Opposition, along with related attachments and a reference to defense counsel in the heading.“Defendants’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART. The motion is granted as to paragraphs 2-23, 26, 28-29, and 46-47, along with any attachments relating thereto, and as to Plaintiff’s reference to defense counsel in the heading of her Response and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.” | agree with court The court applied the standard that motions to strike are disfavored unless the matter has no possible bearing on the litigation. By treating the stricken portions as 'objections' that were 'overruled,' the court effectively removed arguments it deemed irrelevant or improper without fully explaining why they lacked bearing on the subject matter, but the result is consistent with the broad discretion afforded to district courts in managing pleadings under Rule 12(f). |
Defendants' Motion for Sanctions is denied.“Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.” | agree with court The order does not provide specific reasoning for denying sanctions other than the general admonition against personal attacks. However, denying sanctions when the court is already striking the offending material is a common and defensible exercise of discretion to avoid chilling advocacy or because the conduct did not rise to the level of Rule 11 or inherent authority sanctions. |
Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended response and opposition to the motion to dismiss within five court days.“Plaintiff shall file an amended response and opposition to the motion to dismiss, in a manner consistent with this Order, no later than five court days from the filing of this order.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order to allow the non-moving party to cure the deficiencies identified in the strike order, ensuring the court can consider a proper opposition to the pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order cites the correct standard for Rule 12(f) motions and applies it. However, it is 'sound with gaps' because it does not explicitly explain why the specific paragraphs (2-23, 26, 28-29, 46-47) were 'immaterial' or 'impertinent' as required by the cited standard. It simply states they are 'overruled' and 'stricken' without detailing the legal or factual basis for their exclusion, which makes it difficult to assess if the 'no possible bearing' standard was truly met for each paragraph.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 COLLETTE STARK, an individual, Case No.: 20cv1913-JAH 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 13 GG HOMES, INC., a California STRIKE; AND corporation, and PAUL GREEN, an 14 (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ individual, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 38] 16 17 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 32. Plaintiff filed a response and opposition to the 19 motion. See Doc. No. 35. Defendants now move to Strike Plaintiff’s response and 20 opposition to its Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions. See Doc. No. 38. 21 A party may move to strike from a pleading “an insufficient defense or any 22 redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “[T]he 23 function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must 24 arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” See 25 Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). Motions to strike 26 are generally disfavored, unless “it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no 27 possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.” See LeDuc v. Kentucky Central 28 1 Life Ins. Co., 814 F. Supp. 820, 830 (N.D. Cal. 1992); Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 24 F. 2 Supp. 2d 1013, 1037 (C.D. Cal. 1998); See also Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, 758 F. 3 Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). 4 Having reviewed the Defendants’ motion and Plaintiff’s Response and Opposition 5 to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, this Court accepts the following arguments, along with 6 any attachments relating thereto, in Plaintiff’s Response and Opposition as objections: 7 paragraphs 2-23, 26, 28-29, and 46-47. Having considered these objections, within the 8 context of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and the entire record in this case, the Court finds 9 the objections are OVERRULED and STRICKEN from the pleading. The Court also 10 strikes Plaintiff’s reference to defense counsel in the heading of its pleading. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Defendants’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART. The motion is granted 13 as to paragraphs 2-23, 26, 28-29, and 46-47, along with any attachments relating 14 thereto, and as to Plaintiff’s reference to defense counsel in the heading of her 15 Response and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Defendants’ 16 Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. 17 2. Plaintiff shall file an amended response and opposition to the motion to dismiss, 18 in a manner consistent with this Order, no later than five court days from the 19 filing of this order. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 3. ALL PARTIES ARE ADMONISHED that personal attacks by any party 2 against another—moving forward—will not be tolerated by this Court and may 3 result in sanctions provided by law. The arguments that will inform the outcome 4 of any motion, including Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, will be based upon the 5 facts and the applicable law. 6 4. This Court will take the Motion to Dismiss under submission without oral 7 argument and will decide the matter in due course. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 ||}DATED: — February 4, 2021 12 B JOHN A. HOUSTON NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28