Somera v. County of San Joaquin

Full title: CHESTER MARK SOMERA, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN; MICHAEL ARREOLA…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 14, 2015

2:14-CV-1424-GEB-AC (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2015)

Opinion

CHESTER MARK SOMERA, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN; MICHAEL ARREOLA; CHRIS STIEHR; CHRIS TUNQUIST; NELIDA STONE; JANET LEE BARTON; CLAUDE PURKIS; BRENT MANGHAM; MARK BUTLER; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Defendants. No. 2:14-CV-1424-GEB-AC United States District Court, Eastern District of California January 14, 2015

          ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. Senior United States District Judge

         Defendants Mangham and Butler move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(f) for an order striking the portions of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint sounding in state law notwithstanding Plaintiff's characterization of his claims as federal claims alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the movants have not shown that the motion is authorized by Rule 12(f); therefore, the motion is denied. See generally Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir. 2010)("hold[ing] that Rule 12(f) . . . does not authorize a district court to dismiss a claim for damages on the basis it is precluded as a matter of law.").