Opinion
Case No.: 11-CV-0506-LHK
11-22-2011
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. NGOC HA T. NGUYEN, individually and d/b/a VI SAO CAFE, a/k/a SAO RESTAURANT, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT
Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., filed its Complaint on February 2, 2011, to which Defendant Ngoc Ha T. Nguyen filed a one-sentence Answer Presenting Defenses Under Rule 12(b) on March 22, 2011. See ECF No. 1 and 5. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer with leave to amend on July 19, 2011. See ECF No. 13.
Defendant filed a First Amended Answer to Complaint on August 16, 2011, which included sixteen affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a cause of action; (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (3) lack of standing; (4) statute of limitations, doctrine of laches; (5) failure to mitigate; (6) waiver; (7) entrapment by estoppel; (8) comparative fault; (9) estoppel; (10) intervening acts; (11) alleged actions were not intentional; (12) lack of proximate cause; (13) undue hardship; (14) undue penalty; (15) unclean hands; (16) unjust enrichment. See ECF No. 18. On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities seeking to strike each of Plaintiff's sixteen affirmative defenses for failure to satisfy the legal standard necessary to sustain any of these affirmative defenses. See ECF No. 20. However, on October 13, 2011, the Court appointed pro bono counsel for Defendant, Attorney Sayuri K. Sharper, who then, with permission of Plaintiff, filed Defendant's Second Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. See ECF No. 34 and 35. Defendant's Second Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint contains only three affirmative defenses: (1) lack of knowledge; (2) improper double recovery; and (3) cumulative damages. See ECF No. 35. Since none of these affirmative defenses are addressed in Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, Plaintiff's Motion is mooted by Defendant's Second Amended Answer.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion as moot. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion set for December 1, 2011, is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge