From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zelhofer v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2018
No. 2:16-cv-0773 TLN AC PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2:16-cv-0773 TLN AC PS

06-01-2018

WALTER ZELHOFER, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's motions to strike defendants' answer and for default judgment. ECF Nos. 83, 84. Defendants filed oppositions to the motions, ECF Nos. 85, 86, and plaintiff filed amended replies, ECF Nos. 93, 94. After reviewing the briefing, the undersigned determined no hearing was necessary and plaintiff's motions were submitted on the papers. ECF Nos. 92.

I. MOTION TO STRIKE

Plaintiff seeks to strike defendant's answer or, in the alternative, three of defendants' affirmative defenses. ECF No. 83. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(f) provides that "[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." However, motions to strike are "generally regarded with disfavor because of the limited importance of pleading in federal practice, and because they are often used as a delaying tactic." Neilson v. Union Bank of California, N.A., 290 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (citations omitted).

Here, the court finds that defendants' delay in filing the answer does not support striking the pleading as a whole, as plaintiff was not prejudiced. Furthermore, the court finds that the answer is properly pled and "state[s] in short and plain terms [defendants'] defenses to each claim asserted against [them]." See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(b). The answer thus serves its core function of notifying plaintiff of the theories of defense upon which defendants intend to rely. None of those theories are legally defective. Any error in the designation of particular defenses as "affirmative" is harmless. Accordingly, the court does not find the answer is "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous." See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(f). Plaintiff's motion to strike is therefore denied.

II. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Plaintiff also seeks default judgement against defendants based on the untimely filing of defendants' answer. ECF No. 84 at 2. However, a party seeking default judgment must first request and obtain entry of default from the Clerk's Office pursuant to Rule 55(a). Plaintiff did not do so here, and the motion for default judgment is therefore procedurally improper and must be denied. Moreover, default cannot be had because defendants have filed their answer. While the answer was late, defendants filed a declaration explaining their delay. ECF No. 86-1. Accordingly, defendants have answered and have demonstrated their intent to defend against plaintiff's allegations. Moreover, there does not appear to be any prejudice to plaintiff. For these reasons, the court will deny the motion for default judgment. See Hoang Minh Tran v. Gore, No. 10cv2457 BTM(WVG), 2012 WL 2501036, at *1, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89941, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2012) (declining to enter default where defendant filed late answer and there was no prejudice to plaintiff); see also Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 585 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 2009) ("As a general rule, default judgments are disfavored; cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible."). //// ////

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, ECF No. 83, is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 84, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 1, 2018

/s/_________

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Zelhofer v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2018
No. 2:16-cv-0773 TLN AC PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2018)
Case details for

Zelhofer v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:WALTER ZELHOFER, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 1, 2018

Citations

No. 2:16-cv-0773 TLN AC PS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2018)