Gonzalez v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 29, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-02368
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARIZA GONZALEZ, individually and ) Case No.: 23cv2368-BEN-DEB on behalf of herself and all others ) 12 similarly situated, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 ) MOTION TO STRIKE Plaintiff, ) 14 v. ) 15 ) MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, ) 16 LLC, ) 17 Defendant. ) 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. Defendant filed an opposition. 19 After considering the papers submitted, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is denied. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows a court to strike from a pleading an 21 insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. 22 The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion “is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that 23 must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” 24 Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal 25 quotation marks omitted). “Motions to strike are generally disfavored and should not be 26 granted unless the matter to be stricken clearly could have no possible bearing on the 27 subject of the litigation.” Diamond S.J. Enter., Inc. v. City of San Jose, 395 F. Supp. 3d 28 1202, 1216 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (internal quotations omitted). The decision to grant a | || motion to strike ultimately lies within the discretion of the trial court. Rees v. PNC 2 Bank, N.A., 308 F.R.D. 266, 271-72 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 3 |1973). 4 Here, Plaintiff moves to strike a so-called Rule 68 offer that has not been filed on > || the docket. Consequently, at this point “there is nothing to strike.” Bogner v. Masari 6 Invs., LLC, 2009 WL 1395398, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 19, 2009) (“Because Defendants 7 not filed the offer of judgment with the Court, there is nothing to strike from the 8 record.”); Parker v. Risk Mgmt. Alternative, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 113, 114 (N.D. Ill. 2001) ? (“Plaintiff has erred by moving to strike a document that has not been filed with the 10 court.”). CONCLUSION 12 For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° DATED: August 29, 2024 15 HON-ROGER T. BENITEZ 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-