Shahroki v. Harter

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 ALI SHAHROKI, Case No. 2:21-cv-01126-RFB-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket Nos. 59, 97] 10 MATHEW HARTER, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike all filings by Defendants Burrow 13 and Pearson. Docket No. 59. Defendants Burrow and Pearson filed a response. Docket No. 65. 14 Defendants Ruiz and Marzola & Ruiz Law Group also filed a response. Docket No. 78. Plaintiff 15 filed a reply. Docket No. 80. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike the 16 response filed by Defendants Ruiz and Marzola & Ruiz Law Group. Docket No. 97 (seeking to 17 strike Docket No. 78). Defendants Ruiz and Marzola & Ruiz Law Group filed a response. Docket 18 No. 145. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the 19 reasons discussed more fully below, both motions to strike are DENIED. 20 I. STANDARDS 21 District courts have authority to strike an improper filing under their inherent power to 22 control the docket. E.g., Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010); 23 Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110-11 (D. Nev. 1988). “Striking material under the 24 Court’s inherent power is wholly discretionary.” Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Willis, 2016 WL 25 11247554, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2016). In deciding whether to exercise that discretion, courts 26 consider whether striking the filing would “further the overall resolution of the action,” and 27 whether the filer has a history of excessive and repetitive filing that has complicated 28 proceedings. Jones v. Skolnik, 2015 WL 685228, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 18, 2015). Courts have 1 expressed reluctance at striking filings without some showing of prejudice to the moving party. 2 See, e.g., Mitchell v. Nev. Dept. Of Corr., 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 174002, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 20, 3 2017)). 4 II. ANALYSIS 5 The Court will address Plaintiff’s motions to strike in turn below. 6 A. First Motion to Strike (Docket No. 59) 7 Plaintiff’s first motion to strike is premised on speculation that Defendants Burrow and 8 Pearson have an attorney “ghost-writing” their filings in this case. See, e.g., Docket No. 59 at 7. 9 Defendants Burrow and Pearson responded by filing declarations stating that they are proceeding 10 in this action pro se and have created their filings themselves. Docket No. 65 at 6, 7.1 In light of 11 these representations, the Court is not persuaded that any “ghost-writing” is taking place in this 12 case. As there is no factual basis for Plaintiff’s motion to strike, it will be denied.2 13 B. Second Motion to Strike (Docket No. 97) 14 Plaintiff’s second motion to strike is targeted at the responsive brief filed by Defendants 15 Ruiz and Marzola & Ruiz Law Group. According to Plaintiff, that brief was not filed in accordance 16 with Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Docket No. 97 at 2. As Defendants 17 Ruiz and Marzola & Ruiz Law Group correctly explain in response, however, that rule does not 18 apply to motion practice. See Docket No. 145 at 3; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1), (2) 19 (identifying plaintiffs and defendants that may be joined “in one action”). Moreover, the 20 underlying response was filed because Plaintiff accused Ruiz and Marzola & Ruiz Law Group of 21 ghost-writing. See Docket No. 145 at 2. In light of the circumstances, the Court is not persuaded 22 that there was anything improper in the filing of the underlying response, let alone that the 23 circumstances justify striking that filing. As such, this motion to strike will be denied. 24 25

26 1 Defendants Burrow and Pearson also explain that they have used as templates filings in other cases, but that they do not have the aid of an attorney in doing so. See id. 27 2 Plaintiff seeks a hearing at which he might attempt to substantiate his speculation. See, 28 e.g., Docket No. 80 at 5. The Court finds such a hearing to be unnecessary. See Local Rule 78-1. 1} 01. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed more fully above, Plaintiffs motions to strike are DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 26, 2021 ; Z a Nancy J. Koppe\, _ 6 United Statés-Magistrate Judge , 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28