Opinion
Case No. 15-cv-01412-JCS
06-03-2015
AIRCARGO COMMUNITIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. 9T TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
Re: Dkt. No. 14
Plaintiff Aircargo Communities, Inc. ("Aircargo") moves to strike the affirmative defenses presented in Defendant 9T Technologies, LLC's First Amended Answer pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Mot. (dkt. 14).
"The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . ." Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993)). Although Rule 12(f) allows a motion to strike "insufficient defense[s]," such motions "are not favored by the federal courts because of their somewhat dilatory and often harrassing [sic] character." 5C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Civil § 1381 (3d ed. rev. Apr. 2015).
Aircargo's Motion does not identify any way in which the defenses at issue are likely to cause an expenditure of time or money, or any other form of prejudice. Absent such a showing, striking the defenses would represent merely "an empty formalism." See Hernandez v. Balakian, No. CV-F-06-1383 OWW/DLB, 2007 WL 1649911, at *9 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2007). The Motion to Strike is therefore DENIED, without prejudice to Aircargo seeking summary judgment with respect to any affirmative defenses that continue to be asserted at the time dispositive motions are filed. The June 26, 2015 hearing is VACATED, and the parties' stipulation (dkt. 15) regarding a briefing schedule and continued hearing date for the Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT.
The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 3, 2015
/s/_________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge