Winns v. Exela Enterprise Solutions Inc

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 17, 2021
• Docket: 4:20-cv-06762
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HARRIS LEE WINNS, Case No. 4:20-cv-06762-YGR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 9 v. TO STRIKE AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 10 EXELA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, INC., PLEADINGS 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 58, 60

13 14 The Court has reviewed the briefing on the current pending motions: a motion to strike 15 defendant’s purported affirmative defenses and a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by 16 pro se plaintiff Harris Lee Winns. (See Dkt. Nos. 58, 60.) Having carefully reviewed the record, 17 the papers submitted on each motion, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court 18 Hereby Orders as follows; (1) the motion to strike affirmative defenses raised in defendant Exela 19 Enterprise Solutions, Inc.’s answer is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; and (2) the motion for 20 judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.1 21 I. Motion to Strike Defendant’s Purported Affirmative Defenses 22 Plaintiff is advised that motions under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 are disfavored even if they allow a court to strike “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 24 scandalous matter” from a pleading. That said, the Court understands that pro se litigants have 25 extra challenges in navigating a federal action on their own. In pleading affirmative defenses, a 26

27 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 1 defendant can take sufficient time to identify sufficient facts to “nudge[] their [legal] claim across 2 || the line from conceivable to plausible.” See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 3 (2007). While this standard does not require extensive factual allegations, mere labels and 4 || conclusions do not suffice to put a plaintiff, especially pro se, on notice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 5 || U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 6 Plaintiff filed a comprehensive brief moving to strike a// of the affirmative defenses raised 7 || in defendant’s answer and addressing each. The defendant’s two-page opposition does not address 8 || the specific arguments advanced by the plaintiff and fails to justify the defenses asserted. 9 || Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to strike is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 10 Defendant shall file an amended answer within 30 days of this Order. Defendant’s 11 amended answer must identify with more specificity the bases of the defenses to give notice to the 12 || plaintiff of the legal claims asserted. 13 II. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 14 “(Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), a plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on 3 15 || the pleadings if the defendant’s answer raises issues of fact or affirmative defenses.” Pit River 16 Tribe v. BLM, 793 F.3d 1147, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015). This was done here and discovery is still i 17 || open. The Court is also permitting defendant leave to amend its answer. Therefore, the motion Zz 18 for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. 19 This Order terminates Docket Numbers 58 and 60. 20 IT Is SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: September 17, 2021 22 23 Lopent Hgtfflees, YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28