Edward B. Spencer v. Stuart Sherman, et al.

E.D. California

Edward B. Spencer v. Stuart Sherman, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 22, 2026·No. 1:21-cv-01551·Unknown

Opinion

EDWARD B. SPENCER, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01551 JLT CDB Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART v. AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES STUART SHERMAN, et al., (Docs. 33, 38) Defendants.

Edward B. Spencer seeks to hold Defendant liable for violations of his civil rights. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 17, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 38.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended the motion be: (1) granted as to the second and fifth affirmative defenses, with leave to amend; (2) granted as to the fourth affirmative defense, without leave to amend; (3) and denied as to the first and third affirmative defenses; and (4) that Defendant be directed to file an amended answer within 30 days. (Id. at 3-9.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that any objections were due within 14 days. (Id. at 9.) The Court also advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in a waiver of rights on appeal.” (d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections were filed, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 17, 2025 (Doc. 38) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Plaintiffs motion to strike is GRANTED as to the second and fifth affirmative defenses, with leave to amend. 3. Plaintiffs motion to strike is GRANTED as to the fourth affirmative defense, without leave to amend. 4. Plaintiffs motion to strike is DENIED as to the first and third affirmative defenses. 5. Defendant SHALL file an amended answer to the operative complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. 6. The action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 1g | Dated: _January 22, 2026 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EDWARD B. SPENCER, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01551 JLT CDB Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART v. AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES STUART SHERMAN, et al., (Docs. 33, 38) Defendants.

Edward B. Spencer seeks to hold Defendant liable for violations of his civil rights. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 17, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 38.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended the motion be: (1) granted as to the second and fifth affirmative defenses, with leave to amend; (2) granted as to the fourth affirmative defense, without leave to amend; (3) and denied as to the first and third affirmative defenses; and (4) that Defendant be directed to file an amended answer within 30 days. (Id. at 3-9.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that any objections were due within 14 days. (Id. at 9.) The Court also advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in a waiver of rights on appeal.” (d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections were filed, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has performed a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 17, 2025 (Doc. 38) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Plaintiffs motion to strike is GRANTED as to the second and fifth affirmative defenses, with leave to amend. 3. Plaintiffs motion to strike is GRANTED as to the fourth affirmative defense, without leave to amend. 4. Plaintiffs motion to strike is DENIED as to the first and third affirmative defenses. 5. Defendant SHALL file an amended answer to the operative complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. 6. The action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 1g | Dated: _January 22, 2026 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Edward B. Spencer v. Stuart Sherman, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Edward B. Spencer v. Stuart Sherman, et al. (Edward B. Spencer v. Stuart Sherman, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related