POURSOHI v. BLINKEN

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 29, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01960
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SEYED AMIR SINA MIRMOTALEBI Case No. 21-cv-01960-TSH POURSOHI, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 STRIKE v. 10 Re: Dkt. No. 12 ANTONY BLINKEN, 11 Defendant. 12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiffs Seyed Amir Sina Mirmotalebi Poursohi and Fatemehsadat Mirmotalebi bring this 15 petition for writ of mandamus to compel Defendant Antony Blinken to adjudicate Mirmotalebi’s 16 immigrant visa application. ECF No. 1. They now move to strike Defendant’s answer pursuant to 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). ECF No. 12. Defendant filed an Opposition (ECF No. 16) 18 and Plaintiffs filed a Reply (ECF No. 18). The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition 19 without oral argument and VACATES the August 5, 2021 hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having 20 considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court 21 DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for the following reasons. 22 II. LEGAL STANDARD 23 A “court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, 24 impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion to 25 strike is “to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious 26 issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial[.]” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 27 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). Motions to strike are generally disfavored and 1 the subject of the litigation. If there is any doubt whether the portion to be stricken might bear on 2 an issue in the litigation, the court should deny the motion.” Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 3 352 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (internal citations omitted). 4 “A court should only grant a motion to strike material for the five reasons specifically 5 discussed in the rule—namely, if it is ‘(1) an insufficient defense; (2) redundant; (3) immaterial; 6 (4) impertinent; or (5) scandalous.’” Hernandez v. Aramark Food & Support Servs. Grp., Inc., 7 2020 WL 5507219, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020) (quoting Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 973). A 8 matter is immaterial if it “has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the 9 defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on 10 other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). Similarly, “‘[i]mpertinent’ matter consists of statements that 11 do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question.” Id. A matter is redundant if it 12 needlessly duplicates other material in the complaint. Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 974; Figy v. 13 Lifeway Foods, Inc., 2016 WL 4364225, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2016) (“Redundant matter is 14 defined as allegations that constitute a needless repetition of other averments or are foreign to the 15 issue.”) (simplified). “‘Scandalous’ includes allegations that cast a cruelly derogatory light on a 16 party or other person.” In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 17 2000) (citation omitted). 18 “With a motion to strike, just as with a motion to dismiss, the court should view the 19 pleading in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Platte Anchor Bolt, 352 F. Supp. 2d 20 at 1057 (citing In re 2TheMart.com, 114 F. Supp. 2d at 965). “Ultimately, whether to grant a 21 motion to strike lies within the sound discretion of the district court.” Cruz v. Bank of New York 22 Mellon, 2012 WL 2838957, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2012) (citing Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 973). 23 When striking a claim or defense, leave to amend should be freely given if doing so does not cause 24 prejudice to the opposing party. Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir. 1979). 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 Plaintiffs argue that “[e]ven though many if not most of Plaintiffs’ allegations were based 27 upon documents Defendants produced prior to litigation and many were confirmed by Defendants 1 that they could have easily confirmed.” Mot. at 2. They request the Court strike Defendant’s 2 answers and deem admitted the allegations that comprise facts “where Defendants claim they lack 3 sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny, when those facts have already been revealed 4 through submitted documents or the facts could have easily been confirmed if Defendants exerted 5 a minimal effort.” Id. at 2-3. 6 The Court finds Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied as they have failed to establish any of 7 the grounds set forth in Rule 12(f) for striking a pleading. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs do 8 not seek to strike any of Defendant’s affirmative defenses. As to the remaining four grounds, 9 while Plaintiffs claim that Defendant’s “blanket” denial of certain allegations “continues 10 throughout the entire answer,” Mot. at 4, they do not explain how any of these responses are 11 redundant because they “constitute a needless repetition of other averments or are foreign to the 12 issue.” Figy, 2016 WL 4364225, at *3. Plaintiffs also do not argue that any of Defendant’s 13 responses are unnecessary or unrelated to the questions and claims at issue. Therefore, Plaintiffs 14 have failed to establish that any of Defendant’s responses are immaterial or impertinent. Nor do 15 Plaintiffs claim that Defendant’s responses are so derogatory as to be scandalous. Reviewing 16 Defendant’s answer in the light most favorable to him shows that his responses address Plaintiff’s 17 allegations directly without reference to extraneous or derogatory matters. See, e.g., S.F. Herring 18 Ass’n v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 2020 WL 6736930, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2020) (denying 19 motion to strike because the court could not “conclude that these allegations have no possible 20 bearing on the subject matter of the litigation such that it would be appropriate to strike them 21 altogether”) (simplified). Plaintiffs do not contend otherwise. 22 Rather than argue the applicability of any of the bases provided in Rule 12(f), Plaintiffs 23 take issue with Defendant’s answer because the facts set forth in their complaint “could have 24 easily been confirmed if Defendants exerted a minimal effort.” Mot. at 3-4. However, the alleged 25 failure of a defendant to adequately verify the factual allegations in a complaint does not fall 26 within one of the enumerated bases set forth in Rule 12(f) for striking matters from a pleading. 27 Plaintiffs also argue Defendant’s denials are “irresponsible, incorrect, and inexplicable,” id. at 6, 1 therefore, not appropriate bases to strike a pleading. See, e.g., In re Arris Cable Modem Consumer 2 || Litig., 2018 WL 288085, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2018) (“Rule 12(f) is not a mechanism for 3 || challenging the factual accuracy of a [pleading].”) (simplifed); Swain v. CACH, LLC, 699 F. Supp. 4 }} 2d 1117, 1124-25 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“The Court finds that Defendants’ challenges to the 5 || truthfulness of portions of Plaintiff's Complaint require the Court to make factual determinations 6 || that go to merits of the case, and such challenges are not appropriate under a Rule 12(f) motion to 7 strike.”’). 8 In sum, because Plaintiffs have failed to establish any of the grounds set forth in Rule 12(f) 9 for striking a pleading, and because Rule 12(f) motions are disfavored, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ 10 || motion to strike should be denied. 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to strike. 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 || Dated: July 29, 2021 2 16 LU \ - joy □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28