Kapoor v. Blinken

Opinion

1 2 3 7 8 SHREYA KAPOOR, YASH PAL GARG, Case No. 21-cv-01961-BLF and REVA GARG, 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 10 MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S v. ANSWER 11 ANTONY BLINKEN, [Re: ECF 13] 12 Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff Shreya Kapoor and her parents, Plaintiffs Yash and Reva Garg, seek to compel 15 Defendant Antony Blinken to adjudicate the immigrant visa applications of Plaintiffs Yash and 16 Reva Garg. See Petition, ECF 1. They filed the present action on March 19, 2021, and Defendant 17 timely answered on May 25, 2021. See id; Answer, ECF 12. 18 Plaintiffs move to strike Defendant’s answer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 12(f). See Mot. to Strike, ECF 13. Defendant filed opposition to the motion on June 29, 2021. 20 See Opp., ECF 15. Plaintiffs did not file a reply and the time to do so has elapsed. See Civ. L.R. 21 7-3(c). The Court has vacated the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion and taken the matter under 22 submission without oral argument. See Order Vacating Hearing, ECF 16. 23 Under Rule 12(f), “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any 24 redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The court may 25 act on its own or on motion by a party. See id. “Motions to strike are generally regarded with 26 disfavor because of the limited importance of pleading in federal practice, and because they are 27 often used as a delaying tactic.” Philpot v. Baltimore Post-Exam’r, No. 3:20-CV-00872-H-MSB, 1 reviewing a motion to strike, the court must view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the 2 non-moving party.” Id. 3 Plaintiffs move to strike Defendant’s answer in its entirety. The answer is twenty pages in 4 length; responds to each of the 135 numbered paragraphs in the complaint, as well as the 5 complaint’s unnumbered first paragraph and the prayer; and asserts two affirmative defenses, 6 failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Answer, ECF 12. Plaintiffs 7 neither contend that the defenses alleged in the answer are “insufficient,” nor identify any material 8 in the answer that is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.” Accordingly, Plaintiffs 9 have failed to demonstrate any of the grounds for relief enumerated in Rule 12(f). 10 Plaintiffs instead challenge the veracity of Defendant’s denials of certain allegations in the 11 complaint, arguing that Defendant either knows that the allegations of the complaint are true or 12 easily could have confirmed their truth. Mot. at 3, ECF 13. Plaintiffs assert that “this Court 5 13 should strike Defendants’ answers and deem admitted the allegations that comprise facts where 14 Defendants deny allegations that have that could have easily been confirmed if Defendants exerted 3 15 a minimal effort.” Jd. at 5. Plaintiffs also contend that the Court should deem admitted facts 16 “actually in the possession of Defendants.” Jd. 3 17 Plaintiffs misapprehend the scope and purpose of Rule 12(f). The rule does not grant the 18 Court authority to resolve a factual challenge to allegations set forth in an answer, nor does the 19 rule permit the Court to deem particular facts admitted. The purpose of the rule is to allow a court 20 to strike from a pleading matter that “clearly could have no possible bearing on the subject of the 21 litigation.” Fodera v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., No. 19-CV-05072-WHO, 2021 WL 23294, at *2 22 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiffs have not identified any 23 material in the answer that is extraneous to the subject matter of this litigation. 24 Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answer is DENIED. 25 han 26 Dated: July 13, 2021 M. ton) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 27 United States District Judge 28