Shahrokhi v. Harter

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 ALI SHAHROKHI, 7 Case No.: 2:20-cv-01623-JAD-NJK Plaintiff, 8 ORDER v. 9 [Docket No. 75] JUDGE MATHEW HARTER, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Ali Shahrokhi’s motion to strike affirmative defenses 13 in Defendants Thomas Standish and Philip Spradling’s answer. Docket No. 75; see also Docket 14 No. 50 (answer). The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants’ response, and 15 Plaintiff’s reply. Docket Nos. 75, 82, 85. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See 16 Local Rule 78-1. 17 Courts only address well-developed legal arguments. See, e.g., Kor Media Grp., LLC v. 18 Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013); see also Local Rule 7-2(a) (stating all motions 19 filed in this Court “must be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities”).1 “Parties 20 may not merely identify an objection or response in seeking judicial intervention.” Oliva v. Cox 21 Comms. Las Vegas, Inc., 2018 WL 6171780, at *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2018). 22 Further, the Court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, 23 immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Whether to grant a motion 24 to strike is within the Court’s discretion; however, such motions are usually disfavored. See Nurse 25 v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Nevada Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Clark

26 1 The Court liberally construes filings of pro se parties. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 27 107 (1976). Nonetheless, pro se parties must still comply with rules and case law. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). 28 1} Cty., 565 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (D. Nev. 2008). “[C]ourts often require a showing of prejudice by the 2|| moving party before granting the requested relief.” Roadhouse v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 3} 290 F.R.D. 535, 543 (D. Nev. 2013). 4 Plaintiff's motion seeks an order striking all affirmative defenses listed in Defendants’ answer, but fails to incorporate any case law specifically relating to the affirmative defenses at 6] issue.? See Docket No. 75 at 2-5. The arguments presented merely submit that Defendants’ 7| affirmative defenses are insufficient under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. /d. 8|| The motion also fails to address, let alone demonstrate, what prejudice will result from allowing the affirmative defenses to stand. In any event, the Court has considered the motion on its merits 10] and finds that Defendants’ affirmative defenses, as stated in their answer, comply with the Federal 11} Rules of Civil Procedure. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses is hereby 13] DENIED. Docket No. 75. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: December 15, 2020 16 7, as —, Nancy. Koppe 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26), > Plaintiffs reply cites to case law. See Docket No. 85. However, the Court disregards 27| Plaintiff's arguments first raised in his reply brief because the timing of the argument deprives Defendants of the opportunity to respond. See, e.g., Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th 28] Cir. 1996).