Bradford v. Daniels

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 27, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00493
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** JULIUS BRADFORD, 7 Plaintiff, 8 2:21-cv-00493-RFB-VCF vs. 9 ORDER CHARLES DANIELS, et al., 10 MOTION TO STRIKE [ECF NO. 18]; MOTION Defendants. TO DROP/SUBSTITUTE PARTY [ECF NO. 20] 11

12 Plaintiff Julius Bradford filed a motion to strike the defendants’ answer (ECF No. 18) and a 13 motion to drop defendant Senior Correctional Officer Jesus Ruiz (ECF No. 20). I deny the motion to 14 strike (ECF No. 18) and grant the motion to drop defendant Ruiz (ECF No. 20). 15 I. Background 16 Judge Boulware screened plaintiff’s complaint and ordered that his first and second Eighth 17 Amendment conditions of confinement claims claims could move forward. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff argues 18 in his motion to strike the defendants’ answer that the defendants’ affirmative defenses are (1) not 19 affirmative defenses, (2) impertinent and/or immaterial, and (3) redundant. ECF No. 18. The defendants 20 argue in their response that Bradford did not argue the defendants’ affirmative defenses prejudice him in 21 any way moving forward. ECF No. 19. The plaintiff argues in his reply that the defendants’ affirmative 22 defenses are insufficient. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff also argues that he does not have to show that he would 23 be prejudiced because prejudice is not a factor in the rules. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff argues in his motion to 24 drop defendant Ruiz that he made a mistake when he named him in his complaint and wants to drop him 25 1 1 as a defendant for that reason. ECF No. 20. The defendants did not file a response to plaintiff’s motion 2 to drop defendant Ruiz. 3 II. Discussion 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states that "[t]he court may strike from a pleading an 5 insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." The purpose of a 6 Rule 12(f) motion to strike is "to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating 7 spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial." Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 8 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), 9 rev'd on other grounds, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 114 S. Ct. 1023, 127 L. Ed. 2d 455 10 (1994)); see also 2 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice, § 12.37[3], 128-29 (3d ed. 2017) ("To 11 prevail on this motion to strike, the movant must clearly show that the challenged matter 'has no bearing 12 on the subject matter of the litigation and that its inclusion will prejudice the defendants.'"). 13 Whether to grant a motion to strike lies within the discretion of the district court. Whittlestone, 14 Inc., 618 F.3d at 973. "[F]ederal courts generally disfavor motions to strike." D.E. Shaw Laminar 15 Portfolios, LLC, 570 F.Supp.2d at 1271 (quoting Germaine Music v. Universal Songs of Polygram, 275 16 F.Supp.2d 1288, 1300 (D. Nev. 2003)). "[C]ourts often require a showing of prejudice by the moving 17 party before granting the requested relief." Roadhouse v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 290 F.R.D. 18 535, 543 (D. Nev. 2013) (internal quotation omitted)."Unless it would prejudice the opposing party, 19 courts freely grant leave to amend stricken pleadings." Kohler v. Islands Restaurants, LP, 280 F.R.D. 20 560, 564 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Wyshak v. City Nat'l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir.1979)). 21 Plaintiff has failed to make a threshold showing that he will be prejudiced if relief is not granted 22 through the instant motion. Plaintiff can take discovery to better discern the basis of the affirmative 23 defenses raised in this case. Plaintiff is not prevented from challenging these defenses through later 24 proceedings that are better suited to evaluating their sufficiency. Since plaintiff has not shown any 25 2 1 prejudice by allowing the instant defenses to stand at this juncture, I deny the motion to strike. See 2 Roadhouse, 290 F.R.D. at 543 (after determining no prejudice existed, finding it unnecessary to strike 3 thirty "listed" affirmative defenses); see also Russell Road Food & Beverage, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4 177415, 2013 WL 6684631, at 1-2 and Bd. of Trs. of the Glazing Health & Welfare Fund v. Z-Glass, 5 Inc., No. 2:17-cv-01638-JAD-NJK, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233638, at 11 (D. Nev. Apr. 3, 2019) 6 (Finding that a motion to strike is properly denied, without addressing the merits of each affirmative 7 defense, pursuant to Roadhouse, supra, when a plaintiff does not make a threshold showing of 8 prejudice.). I grant plaintiff’s motion to drop defendant Jesus Ruiz. 9 Accordingly, 10 I ORDER that the plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 18) is DENIED. 11 I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff’s motion to drop defendant Jesus Ruiz (ECF No. 20) is 12 GRANTED. 13 NOTICE 14 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 15 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 16 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 17 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 18 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 19 objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 20 waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 21 District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 22 Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file 23 written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of 24 25 3 1 || service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by 2 || counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED this 27th day of October 2022. Load ete CAMFERENBACH 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25