Alice Saliba, et al. v. Martinez Refining Company LLC; Elizabeth Silvestri, et al. v. Martinez Refining Company LLC; Robert Manning, et al. v. Martinez Refining Company LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 27, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-08153
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALICE SALIBA, et al., Case No. 24-cv-08153-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 9 v. STRIKE

10 MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 30 11 Defendant. 12 ELIZABETH SILVESTRI, et al., Case No. 24-cv-08241-HSG

13 Plaintiffs, Re: Dkt. No. 31 14 v.

15 MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY LLC,

16 Defendant.

17 ROBERT MANNING, et al., Case No. 24-cv-08316-HSG 18 Plaintiffs, 19 v. Re: Dkt. No. 26

20 MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY LLC, 21 Defendant.

22 23 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to strike affirmative defenses in three of the 24 related cases against Defendant Martinez Refining Company LLC. See Saliba v. Martinez 25 Refining Company LLC, Case No. 24-cv-08153-HSG, Dkt. No. 30; Silvestri v. Martinez Refining 26 Company LLC, Case No. 24-cv-08241-HSG, Dkt. No. 31; Manning v. Martinez Refining 27 Company LLC, Case No. 24-cv-08316-HSG, Dkt. No. 26. The Court finds these matters 1 Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES 2 IN PART the motions to strike. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 This is one of several related cases filed in this district against Defendant Martinez 5 Refining Company, LLC (“MRC” or “Defendant”).1 MRC owns and operates an oil refinery in 6 Martinez, California, that processes crude oil into gasoline and jet fuel. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.) 7 at ¶¶ 34–35.2 The refinery is surrounded by residential properties. See id. at ¶¶ 28–29. Plaintiffs 8 allege that Defendant emits large quantities of particulate matter as a result of its operations and 9 ongoing safety failures. See id. at ¶¶ 3–10, 35–37. Plaintiffs in these three cases allege the same 10 five causes of action under California law: (1) negligence; (2) public and private nuisance; 11 (3) premises liability; (4) trespass; and (5) strict liability for ultra hazardous activities. See id. at 12 ¶¶ 4382–4435. 13 As relevant here, Plaintiffs move to strike 19 of the 25 affirmative defenses that Defendant 14 identified in its answer. Dkt. No. 30. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has failed to plead sufficient 15 facts to make ten of the defenses plausible. See id. at 8–10. And Plaintiffs further argue that nine 16 of the defenses are not affirmative defenses at all. Id. at 6–7. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes a court to “strike from a pleading an 19 insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” An 20 affirmative defense is insufficiently pleaded if it fails to give the opposing party “fair notice” of 21 the nature of the defense. See Wyshak v. City Nat. Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979). In 22 moving to strike, a party seeks “to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from 23 litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” Sidney–Vinstein v. A.H. 24

25 1 These include the above-captioned cases, as well as Malan v. Martinez Refining Company LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-4184-HSG; Cruz v. PBF Energy, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-06142-HSG; Frye v. 26 Martinez Refining Company LLC, Case No. 24-cv-04506-HSG; and Canning v. Martinez Refining Company LLC, Case No. 25-cv-04511-HSG. They are all currently coordinated before this Court 27 for resolution of common issues. 1 Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). “Because motions to strike a defense as 2 insufficient are disfavored, they will not be granted if the insufficiency of the defense is not clearly 3 apparent.” G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Nguyen, No. 10-CV-00168-LHK, 2010 WL 4 3749284, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2010) (quotation omitted). In ruling on a motion to strike, a 5 “court[ ] may not resolve disputed and substantial factual or legal issue[s].” Whittlestone, Inc. v. 6 Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted); cf. Colaprico v. Sun 7 Microsystems, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (“[M]otions to strike should not be 8 granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the 9 subject matter of the litigation.”). “Ultimately, whether to grant a motion to strike lies within the 10 sound discretion of the district court.” Kanaan v. Yaqub, 709 F. Supp. 3d 864, 867 (N.D. Cal. 11 2023) (quotation omitted).3 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 A. Insufficiency of the Pleadings 14 Plaintiffs first argue that ten of the affirmative defenses are boilerplate, and they also fail to 15 satisfy the Twombly and Iqbal pleading standard. See Dkt. No. 30 at 8–10. The Ninth Circuit has 16 not definitively decided whether the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard should apply to affirmative 17 defenses. However, this Court recently explained that upon further reflection it does not believe 18 this standard should apply. See Lewis v. Hilltop Grp., L.P., No. 25-CV-03398-HSG, 2025 WL 19 2899511, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025). The Court incorporates this analysis in its entirety here. 20 As in Lewis, the Court does not find Defendant’s boilerplate defenses to be so clearly insufficient 21 as to fail to give notice, and it declines to exercise its discretion to strike these affirmative defenses 22 absent any showing that doing so would meaningfully streamline this litigation. The Court 23 therefore DENIES the motions to the extent they are based on Defendant’s purported failure to 24 plead sufficient facts in support of its affirmative defenses. 25

26 3 This Court remains among “the robust and growing ranks of district courts that have lamented the time and expense squandered on Rule 12(f) motions,” see Inn S.F. Enter., Inc. v. Ninth Street 27 Lodging, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00599-JD, 2016 WL 8469189, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2016), and 1 B. Non-Affirmative Defenses 2 Plaintiffs next argue that nine of the affirmative defenses are not in fact affirmative 3 || defenses at all. See Dkt. No. 30 at 6-7. Rather, they either attack Plaintiffs’ prima facie case 4 || directly, such Plaintiffs’ ability to establish “causation,” or they do not preclude liability, such as 5 || Plaintiffs’ ability to recover attorneys’ fees. Id. 6 As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “[a] defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has not 7 met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 8 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendant does not appear to dispute this. See Dkt. No. 42 at 10-11. 9 The Court therefore STRIKES these defenses without leave to amend. Still, the Court agrees 10 || with Defendant that ultimately striking these defenses is of “little practical significance” because 11 Defendant can “challenge [Plaintiffs’] satisfaction of [their] burden to state a valid claim by 12 || motion or at trial whether or not” the answer includes the defenses. Kanaan, 709 F. Supp. 3d at 13 869-70. 14 || Iv. CONCLUSION 15 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions to strike. Saliba, a 16 Case No. 24-cv-08153-HSG, Dkt. No. 30; Silvestri, Case No. 24-cv-08241-HSG, Dkt. No. 31; 3 17 Manning, Case No. 24-cv-08316-HSG, Dkt. No. 26. The Court STRIKES Defendant’s 18 Affirmative Defenses 1—3, 18-20, and 23-25, but otherwise DENIES the motions in their entirety. 19 As will be discussed further at the upcoming case management conference, the parties have 20 significant work to do in these related cases, and the Court expects the parties to use their time—as 21 well as the Court’s resources—in an efficient manner that focuses on the key merits issues rather 22 || than marginal matters. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: 10/27/2025 25 Akard 8 Ml). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 26 United States District Judge 27 28