Stebbins v. Polano

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 27, 2022
• Docket: 4:21-cv-04184
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID A. STEBBINS, Case No. 21-cv-04184-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY 9 v. MOTION TO STRIKE

10 KARL POLANO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 142 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff has filed a motion styled as an emergency motion to strike the motion to intervene 14 filed by Alphabet Inc. and YouTube LLC. (Dkt. No. 138.) Plaintiff’s motion is nothing more 15 than an attempted challenge to the legal sufficiency of motion to intervene. The Court DENIES 16 Plaintiff’s motion. 17 Motions to strike are governed by Rule 12(f), which states that “[t]he court may strike 18 from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous 19 matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (emphasis added). Rule 7(a) defines a pleading as “(1) a complaint; 20 (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an 21 answer to a crossclaim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and 22 (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). A motion to intervene is 23 not a pleading and therefore is not susceptible to a motion to strike. Even if this were not the case, 24 Rule 12(f) does not apply because the motion to intervene is not redundant, immaterial, 25 impertinent, or scandalous. Plaintiff may raise his arguments in opposition to intervention in his 26 response to the motion to intervene. 27 Further, the Court takes issue with Plaintiff’s repeated characterization of his motions as ] to comply with the Local Rules. (Dkt. No. 134.) Despite numerous admonishments, Plaintiff 2 || continues to file requests with the Court that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure and the Local Rules. Pro se litigants are not immune from the rules of procedure that 4 || govern other litigants. King v. Ativeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs improperly 5 filed motions preempt the use of judicial resources that might otherwise be devoted to adjudicating 6 || the meritorious claims of other litigants. If Plaintiff continues to abuse the judicial process in this 7 || way, the Court will issue an order to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious 8 litigant subject to a pre-filing order. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: April 27, 2022 ff}, ) M1 \LOF Liu JER REY/S| WHE 12 United States Divéict Judge 13

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28