Sonia Sayyedalhosseini v. Los Rios Community College District

Summary

The document contains findings and recommendations on Sonia Sayyedalhosseini’s motion to strike portions of Los Rios Community College District’s answer in a Title VII retaliation action. The magistrate judge recommends granting the motion in part by striking the unclean-hands defense and deeming several other defenses withdrawn, while denying the motion in all other respects. The recommendations were issued for review by the assigned district judge.

Holdings

1. A motion to strike is not an appropriate vehicle for resolving the evidentiary weight, credibility, factual disputes, or merits of challenged allegations and defenses; those issues should generally be left for adjudication on the merits.
2. An affirmative defense need only give the opposing party fair notice of the defense; a defense should not be stricken merely because its legal or factual correctness is disputed or because it may ultimately fail.
3. The unclean-hands defense should be stricken because it failed to identify the factual basis on which it rested.
4. The defenses asserting legitimate reasons for the employment decision and that the decision would have occurred absent retaliatory motive were sufficiently pleaded and should not be stricken.
5. The jury demand should not be stricken because any party may demand a jury trial under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Questions Presented

1. Whether portions of defendant's answer denying the accuracy, credibility, or probative value of an EEOC determination should be stricken.
2. Whether defendant's denials, asserted nonretaliatory reasons for termination, and characterization of the claims as limited to a particular EEOC charge should be stricken.
3. Whether defendant's affirmative defenses should be stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) for insufficient notice or other pleading defects.
4. Whether defendant's jury demand and prayer for relief should be stricken.

Disposition

other