(PC) Howard v. Rodriguez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 6, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00285
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KARLIS RUBEN AUGUSTUS No. 1:24-cv-00285-JLT-SAB (PC) HOWARD, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION Plaintiff, TO STRIKE ANSWER 13 v. (ECF No. 45) 14 RODRIGUEZ, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s answer, filed 21 December 23, 2024. 22 Although a defectively pled affirmative defense can be stricken under Federal Rule of 23 Civil Procedure 12(f), which authorizes the removal of “an insufficient defense,” motions to 24 strike such defenses are “regarded with disfavor because of the limited importance of pleading in 25 federal practice, and because they are often used as a delaying tactic.” Brooks v. Bevmo! Inc., et 26 al., No. 20-CV-01216-MCE-DB, 2021 WL 3602152, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) (quoting 27 Dodson v. Gold Country Foods, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00336-TLN-DAD, 2013 WL 5970410 at * 1 28 1 | (ED. Cal. Nov. 4, 2013), citing Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., N.A., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1152 2 | (C.D. Cal. 2003)). “Accordingly, courts often require a showing of prejudice by the moving party 3 | before granting the requested relief.” Id. (quoting Vogel v. Linden Optometry APC, No. CV 13- 4 | 00295 GAF (SHx), 2013 WL 1831686 at * 2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2013), citing Quintana v. Baca, 5 | 233 F.R.D. 562, 564 (C.D. Cal. 2005)). Where no such prejudice is demonstrated, motions to 6 || strike may therefore be denied “even though the offending matter was literally within one or more 7 | of the categories set forth in Rule 12(f).” Id. (quoting N.Y.C. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Berry, 667 F. 8 | Supp. 2d 1121, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2009)). Ultimately, “whether to grant a motion to strike lies 9 | within the sound discretion of the district court.” Id. (quoting California Dep’t of Toxic 10 | Substances Control v. Alco Pac., Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). 11 Plaintiff brings this motion to strike Defendant’s answer or portions of the answer as 12 | insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. However, Plaintiff has not shown 13 || that he would actually be prejudiced by the inclusion of any of the specific affirmative defenses 14 | he seeks to exclude. This is insufficient, particularly since motions to strike affirmative defenses 15 | are not favored. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants’ answer is DENIED. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 18 | Dated: _ January 6, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28