"Sewer service" occurs when the defendant "fail[s] to serve a debtor and fil[es] a fraudulent affidavit attesting to service so that when the debtor later fails to appear in court, a default judgment can be entered against them." Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 925, 929 (N.D. Cal. 2013). In support of Plaintiff's first contention, the FAC includes data reflecting Flynn's "unrealistically high percentage" of lawsuits purportedly personally served on defendants in debt collection cases, the equally high number of nonresponsive defendants who were supposedly personally served, and Flynn's "inexplicable descriptions" of people allegedly personally served.

Just as with a motion to dismiss, courts view the challenged pleading in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 925, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Ultimately, the decision whether to strike a matter lies within the sound discretion of a district court. Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 974.

Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Inc., 966 F.Supp.2d 925, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

Plaintiff alleges Defendants are engaged in the practice of “sewer service”—“failing to serve a debtor and filing a fraudulent affidavit attesting to service so that when the debtor later fails to appear in court, a default judgment can be entered against him.” Holmes v. Elec. Doc. Processing, Inc., 966 F.Supp.2d 925, 933 (N.D. Cal. 2013); see Compl. ¶ 1.

“Sewer service” occurs when a defendant “fail[s] to serve a debtor and fil[es] a fraudulent affidavit attesting to service so that when the debtor later fails to appear in court, a default judgment can be entered against [him].” Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Inc., 966 F.Supp.2d 925, 929 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Additionally, the FAC alleged in support of an agency relationship that Entity Defendants' compensation structure, which paid Flynn only for completed service, incentivized Flynn's false affirmations of personal service.

"Scandalous" has also been defined as allegations that cast a "cruelly derogatory light" on someone. Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 925, 938 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citations omitted). Motions to strike are generally disfavored and "should not be granted unless the matter to be stricken clearly could have no possible bearing on the subject of the litigation."

Finally, a matter should not be stricken from a pleading "'unless it is clear that it can have no possible bearing upon the subject matter of the litigation; if there is any doubt as to whether under any contingency the matter may raise an issue, the motion may be denied.'" Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 925, 938 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Wailua Assocs. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 183 F.R.D. 550, 553-54 (D. Haw. 1998)). Thus, as motions to strike are disfavored, the Court finds it prudent to exercise its discretion and not strike these portions of Reasoner's SAC because it is not clear that they have no possible bearing upon his allegations.

Motions to strike are generally disfavored. Petrie v. Elec. Game Card, Inc. , 761 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2014) ; see alsoHolmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Inc. , 966 F.Supp.2d 925, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ("Motions to strike are generally disfavored and ‘should not be granted unless the matter to be stricken clearly could have no possible bearing on the subject of the litigation ...’ " (quoting Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc. , 352 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004) )). "Ultimately, whether to grant a motion to strike lies within the sound discretion of the district court." Holmes , 966 F.Supp.2d at 930 ; see alsoFantasy Inc. v. Fogerty , 984 F.2d 1524, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds , 510 U.S. 517, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994).

"If there is any doubt whether the portion to be stricken might bear on an issue in the litigation, the court should deny the motion." Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 925, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004)). Whether to grant a motion to strike is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.

Without a more complete record, the Court cannot determine whether California's "litigation privilege [would] similarly conflict[] with the RFDCPA as applied in this action, [and] completely shield [d]efendants from liability for the improper collection of debt." Holmes v. Electronic Document Processing, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d. 925, 937 (N.D. Cal.2013). Accordingly, the Court finds that California's litigation privilege does not bar plaintiffs' claims at this juncture.