Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff requested leave to file a motion to strike portions of a declaration supporting defendants' motion for vexatious-litigation relief. The court denied the request, holding that Rule 12(f) applies only to pleadings and not to declarations, and noting the plaintiff's failure to comply with prior filing restrictions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's request for leave to file a motion to strike“That request is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which limits motions to strike to 'pleadings' as defined in Rule 7(a). Declarations and affidavits are not pleadings; therefore, a motion to strike is procedurally improper for challenging such evidence. The court's reliance on Ninth Circuit precedent (Sidney-Vinstein) and persuasive district court authority confirms that the motion would be futile. Additionally, the court's refusal to grant leave is supported by the plaintiff's non-compliance with the court's prior order limiting filings to a single 25-page brief, as the plaintiff had submitted approximately 3,000 pages of additional filings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies that Rule 12(f) is inapplicable to declarations because they are not 'pleadings' under Rule 7(a). The court cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Sidney-Vinstein) and persuasive district court cases to support this procedural limitation. Furthermore, the court provides a secondary, discretionary basis for denial based on the plaintiff's clear violation of a prior order restricting filings, which is a valid exercise of the court's inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce its orders.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Aparna VASHISHT-ROTA, Case No.: 20-cv-0321-AGS-KSC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO 5 v. STRIKE 6 HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff Aparna Vashisht-Rota recently emailed the Court seeking leave to file a 10 motion to strike parts of a declaration supporting defendants’ motion for vexatious- 11 litigation relief (ECF 330). That request is denied. 12 “The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, 13 immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (emphasis added). 14 “Pleadings” consist only of complaints, answers, and a reply to an answer, “if the court 15 orders one.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). “Under the express language of the rule, only pleadings 16 are subject to motions to strike.” Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 17 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding “error in the trial court’s order striking the plaintiff’s motion”); see 18 also Olson v. Bynum, No. 2:20-cv-2481-TLN-KJN PS, 2021 WL 6000012, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 19 Dec. 20, 2021) (noting that motions to strike “cannot be used to strike an affidavit or 20 declaration, as these are not pleadings”); Holyoak v. United States, No. CV 08-8168-PHX- 21 MKM, 2009 WL 1456742, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2009) (“Rule 12(f) cannot serve as the 22 procedural vehicle for striking language in motion papers.”). Since filing any such motion 23 would be futile, the Court denies plaintiff the requested leave. In her (already filed) 24 opposition briefing, plaintiff was free to argue against the consideration of any opposing 25 evidence. 26 Regardless, the Court is not inclined to grant leave for any more discretionary filings. 27 In its February 21, 2024 order, the Court mandated: “Other than a single response brief 28 opposing [defendants’ vexatious-litigation] motion—of no more than 25 pages in length 1 ||(see CivLR 7.1(h))—no further filings from Vashisht-Rota will be entertained in this 2 ||closed case.” (ECF 321, at 2.) Yet, to date, she has docketed no fewer than ten filings 3 ||(consisting of nearly 3,000 pages, with exhibits) purporting to oppose that motion. (See 4 || ECF 332, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 343, 344.) So, the Court will not permit any 5 || additional briefing on this matter, and in fact may disregard any of the already-submitted 6 || filings that exceed the Court’s previously announced limit. 7 ||Dated: May 15, 2024 9 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28