Summary
The document contains findings and recommendations addressing plaintiff Julian Vaughn’s motion to strike portions of defendants’ answer and counterclaims in a dispute concerning the sale of a Volvo truck and related trailer lease. The magistrate judge recommends denying the motion as untimely, reliant on inapplicable California procedural provisions, and substantively unpersuasive. The parties are advised of the procedure and deadline for filing objections.
Holdings
- A Rule 12(f) motion to strike filed more than a year and a half after service of the answer is untimely under Rule 12(f)(2).
- Allegations are not subject to being stricken merely because the opposing party asserts that they are false or unrelated; a motion to strike requires grounds recognized by Rule 12(f).
- The California Code of Civil Procedure does not govern proceedings in federal court when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff's motion to strike portions of defendants' answer and counterclaim was timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(2).
- Whether the challenged allegations constituted insufficient defenses or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter subject to striking under Rule 12(f).
- Whether reliance on provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure supported striking allegations in this federal action.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973(followed)
- Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527(followed)
- Barroga v. Bd. of Admin. Cal. Pub. Emples. Ret. Sys., No. 2:12-cv-01179 MCE KJN, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154275, at *27 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012)(followed)
- Novva Ausrustung Group, Inc. v. Kajioka, No. 2:17-cv-01293-RFB-VCF, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108614, at *3 (D. Nev. July 13, 2017)(followed)
- Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.)(followed)
- Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…