Shop My Porch, Inc. v. Sidransky

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHOP MY PORCH, INC., Case No.: 21cv2154-LL-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. RESPONSE 14 ASHLEY SIDRANSKY; and DOES 1-10, [ECF No. 5] inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed her complaint for trademark infringement, as 19 well as other claims, related to the alleged unauthorized use of “Shop My Porch” by 20 Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that “Shop My Porch is a community-led movement to enable 21 small home businesses and makers to create a safe and shoppable front porch for neighbors 22 and members of their nearby communities.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 8. On January 8, 2022, Plaintiff 23 served Defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint. ECF No. 4. On January 24 28, 2022, Defendant Ashley Sidransky, proceeding pro se, filed a “Response to a Summons 25 in a Civil Action.” ECF No. 5. 26 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(1), “[i]n responding to a pleading, a 27 party must: (A) state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it; 28 and (B) admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.” See also 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) (requiring allegations in a pleading to be “simple, concise, and 2 direct”). “A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically 3 deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted.” Fed. 4 R. Civ. P. 8(b)(3). “An allegation – other than one relating to the amount of damages – is 5 admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied.” Fed. R. Civ. 6 P. 8(b)(6). “In responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or 7 affirmative defense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (“Every 8 defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if 9 one is required.”). 10 Additionally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), “[t]he court may strike 11 from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 12 scandalous matter.” “The court may act: (1) on its own; or (2) on motion made by a party 13 . . . . within 21 days after being served with the pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The 14 function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money litigating 15 spurious issues. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) 16 (citation omitted); see also Brown v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 881, 888 17 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (finding that motions to strike are proper “even if the material is not 18 prejudicial to the moving party, if granting the motion would make trial less complicated 19 or otherwise streamline the ultimate resolution of the action”). 20 Here, Defendant’s “response” contains some requests that are not appropriate in an 21 answer to a complaint. See, e..g., ECF No. 5 at 4 (“The Facebook group ‘Shop My 22 Neighbor’s Porch – SD’ was deleted on January 4, 2022 and therefore there is no conflict 23 and the case should be dismissed by the court.”). Overall, however, Defendant’s response 24 more closely resembles and answer than a motion to dismiss because she generally denies 25 each of Plaintiff’s claims without extensive argument or any case citations. However, the 26 response does not otherwise conform to the basic requirements for filing an answer because 27 Defendant does not, in short and plain terms, admit, deny, state that she lacks knowledge 28 or information to admit or deny, or provide an affirmative defense to each of the allegations 1 Plaintiffs complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not been given sufficient notice of 2 || Defendant’s defenses. See Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979) 3 (“The key to determining the sufficiency of pleading an affirmative defense is whether it 4 gives plaintiff fair notice of the defense.”). Also, without knowing what issues exist, 5 || Plaintiff cannot assess whether there are spurious issues. While Plaintiff argues that much, 6 not all, of the material in Plaintiff's response should be struck because it 1s immaterial, 7 ||redundant, or impertinent, the fact that Plaintiff did not meet the basic requirements for 8 || filing an answer is sufficient grounds for the Court, on its own, to strike the answer in its 9 || entirety. 10 For the foregoing reasons, the court STRIKES Defendant’s response at ECF No. 5. 11 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. Defendant shall file a response to 12 || Plaintiff's complaint that more closely comports with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13 or before April 8, 2022. The Court is providing ample time for Defendant to respond 14 ||so that she may, if desired, retain counsel to assist her in drafting and filing her response. 15 ||Given Defendant’s initial response, the assistance of counsel would likely facilitate the 16 || more efficient resolution of this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: March 1, 2022 NO 19 No) 20 Honorable Linda Lopez 54 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28