Nancy Ellen Tevis v. Dyson Direct, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Dyson Direct, Inc.’s motion to strike Nancy Ellen Tevis’s class allegations as untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(2). The court also declined to strike the allegations sua sponte under Rule 12(f)(1), concluding that class-certification issues were better addressed through discovery and the class-certification process. The motion to stay discovery was denied as moot.

Holdings

1. When a pleading requires a responsive pleading, a Rule 12(f)(2) motion to strike must be filed before the moving party serves its responsive pleading; a motion filed after the answer is untimely.
2. The court declined to use Rule 12(f)(1) to strike the class allegations sua sponte because doing so based on the arguments in an untimely party motion would circumvent the Ninth Circuit's timeliness rule.
3. The motion to stay discovery was denied as moot because the motion to strike was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant's Rule 12(f)(2) motion to strike the putative class allegations was timely when filed after Defendant had filed an answer.
2. Whether the court should exercise its Rule 12(f)(1) authority to strike the class allegations on its own initiative despite the untimeliness of Defendant's motion.
3. Whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of the motion to strike.

Disposition

other