Thompson 127943 v. Corizon Health Care Incorporated

D. Arizona

Thompson 127943 v. Corizon Health Care Incorporated

DecidedSeptember 27, 2019

Docket2:19-cv-02841

StatusUnknown

This text of Thompson 127943 v. Corizon Health Care Incorporated (Thompson 127943 v. Corizon Health Care Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson 127943 v. Corizon Health Care Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lamont A Thompson, No. CV-19-02841-PHX-SRB (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Corizon Health Care Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike/Objection” (Doc. 39). Plaintiff 17 moves to strike the affirmative defenses in Defendants’ Answers (Docs. 27, 35). Plaintiff 18 asserts that Defendants “have raised insufficient, non-applicable defenses, which in 19 addition to having no legs to stand on, are largely redundant, immaterial and have no 20 merit.” (Doc. 39). 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes the court to “strike from a pleading 22 an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” 23 The purpose of a motion to strike “is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must 24 arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial[.]” 25 Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). “Motions to strike 26 are generally viewed with disfavor and are not frequently granted.” Lazar v. Trans Union 27 LLC, 195 F.R.D. 665, 669 (C.D. Cal. 2000). Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that 28 Defendants’ affirmative defenses are insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or || scandalous. 2 Plaintiff also moves to strike Defendant Ryan’s Answer (Doc. 35) in its entirety for || the reason that Defendant Ryan’s attorney failed to file a notice of appearance. (Doc. 39). 4|| Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(a) provides that “no attorney shall appear in any action or file anything in any action without first appearing as counsel of record.” Both 6 || Defendants are represented by the same firm. (Docs. 27, 35). The Court will direct counsel 7\| to file a formal notice of appearance pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(a). However, the Court 8 || does not find that the lack of a formal notice of appearance warrants the drastic sanction of 9|| striking Defendant Ryan’s Answer. Plaintiff’s request will be denied. Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's “Motion to Strike/Objection” (Doc. 39). 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel shall file a formal notice of || appearance on behalf of Defendants no later than October 3, 2019. 13 Dated this 26th day of September, 2019. 14

16 Honorable Eileen S. Willett 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lamont A Thompson, No. CV-19-02841-PHX-SRB (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Corizon Health Care Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike/Objection” (Doc. 39). Plaintiff 17 moves to strike the affirmative defenses in Defendants’ Answers (Docs. 27, 35). Plaintiff 18 asserts that Defendants “have raised insufficient, non-applicable defenses, which in 19 addition to having no legs to stand on, are largely redundant, immaterial and have no 20 merit.” (Doc. 39). 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes the court to “strike from a pleading 22 an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” 23 The purpose of a motion to strike “is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must 24 arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial[.]” 25 Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). “Motions to strike 26 are generally viewed with disfavor and are not frequently granted.” Lazar v. Trans Union 27 LLC, 195 F.R.D. 665, 669 (C.D. Cal. 2000). Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that 28 Defendants’ affirmative defenses are insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or || scandalous. 2 Plaintiff also moves to strike Defendant Ryan’s Answer (Doc. 35) in its entirety for || the reason that Defendant Ryan’s attorney failed to file a notice of appearance. (Doc. 39). 4|| Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(a) provides that “no attorney shall appear in any action or file anything in any action without first appearing as counsel of record.” Both 6 || Defendants are represented by the same firm. (Docs. 27, 35). The Court will direct counsel 7\| to file a formal notice of appearance pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(a). However, the Court 8 || does not find that the lack of a formal notice of appearance warrants the drastic sanction of 9|| striking Defendant Ryan’s Answer. Plaintiff’s request will be denied. Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's “Motion to Strike/Objection” (Doc. 39). 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel shall file a formal notice of || appearance on behalf of Defendants no later than October 3, 2019. 13 Dated this 26th day of September, 2019. 14

16 Honorable Eileen S. Willett 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Thompson 127943 v. Corizon Health Care Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-127943-v-corizon-health-care-incorporated-azd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack