Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01310/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01310-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BECO DAIRY AUTOMATION, Inc.,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

GLOBAL TECH SYSTEMS, Inc. and DOES 1-

50,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01310 LJO SMS

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

ORDER RE: GLOBAL TECH

SYSTEMS INC.’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE 

COUNTERCLAIM AND ANSWER OF 

STAN BROWN (Doc. 114)

GLOBAL TECH SYSTEMS, Inc., A New 

Mexico Corporation

 Counterclaimant,

 v.

BECO DAIRY AUTOMATION, INC., a 

California Corporation, and STAN BROWN, 

an individual,

 Counter-defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

This litigation involves a dispute between Beco Dairy Inc. (“BECO”) and Global Tech Systems, 

Inc. (“GTS”) concerning the development and distribution of dairy technology. 

II. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The procedural history of this case has been documented repeatedly in previous orders. E.g. Doc. 

128. BECO’s fifth amended complaint is operative and alleges claims arising under contract, tort and 

patent law against GTS. Doc. 81. GTS filed an answer and several counterclaims on August 3, 2015. 

Case 1:12-cv-01310-LJO-SKO Document 138 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

Doc. 95. The counterclaims added Stan Brown as a counter-defendant. Id. Its amended answer and 

counterclaims (“FAA”), Doc. 107, are operative. On November 5, 2015, Stan Brown filed an Answer to 

the FAA, (“Brown Answer”), Doc. 110, and his own cross claims (“Brown Claims”) against GTS, 

Robert and Agnes Borchert (“the Borcherts”), Antonio Fematt and Madison One Holdings, LLC 

(“Madison”). Doc. 110-1 ¶¶ 2-5. Brown alleges that the cross-defendants are liable for interference with

prospective economic advantage (Count I), breach of contract (Counts II & III), breach of fiduciary duty 

(Counts IV & V), and negligence (Count VI). Brown Claims ¶¶ 61, 68, 80, 84, 90, 95. Brown also seeks 

a declaratory judgment against GTS regarding the validity of several patents at issue (Count VII). Id. ¶ 

97-99.

On November 30, 2015 GTS moved to dismiss Brown’s first six claims pursuant to rule 12(b)(6) 

and to strike several of his defenses pursuant to rule 12(f). Mem. of P. & A. in Support of GTS’s Mot. to 

Dismiss Countercl. And Mot. to Strike (“MTD”), Doc. 114-1. Brown filed an opposition on December 

30, 2015. Stan Brown’s Opp’n, (“Opposition”), Doc. 126. GTS timely replied. Reply, Doc. 129. The 

matter was taken off-calendar pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Doc. 123.

On January 25, 2016 the other third party defendants moved to dismiss Counts I through VI on 

the basis that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over them. Doc. 131. In an order filed 

concurrently with this one, the Court transferred these claims to the U.S. District Court for the District of 

New Mexico, as to all cross-defendants. The Court severed and retained Count VII (alleged only against 

GTS and intimately related to the underlying cases). Because Counts I through VI are no longer before 

this Court, Defendant’s motion to dismiss them is moot. Accordingly, this order only addresses 

Defendant’s motion to strike.

III. STANDARD OF DECISION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a court may “order stricken from any 

pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” 

“Immaterial matter is that which has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the 

Case 1:12-cv-01310-LJO-SKO Document 138 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

defenses being pleaded.... Impertinent’ matter consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not 

necessary, to the issues in question.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir.1993) 

(citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL 

2d, § 1382, pp. 706–07, 711 (1990)), rev’d. on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). “Redundant” 

allegations are those that are needlessly repetitive or wholly foreign to the issues involved in the action. 

Gilbert v. Eli Lilly Co., Inc., 56 F.R.D. 116, 121, n. 4 (D.P.R.1972). Immaterial matter “is that which has 

no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” California 

Dept. of Toxic Substance Control v. ALCO Pacific, Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1032 (C.D.Cal.2002) 

(internal citations and quotations omitted). Impertinent material “consists of statements that do not 

pertain, or are not necessary to the issues in question.” Id. The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid 

the costs that arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial. See

Fogerty, 984 F.2d at 1527; Sidney–Vinstein v. A .H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983).

IV. ANALYSIS

GTS characterizes Brown’s fourth through seventh and tenth through eighteenth affirmative 

defenses, as well as the last three sentences in his eighth affirmative defense as patent-related defenses 

that have no bearing on Brown since he was not named as a defendant in GTS’s patent law counter 

claims. MTD at 13. GTS seeks to strike these defenses as immaterial. Id. at 14. Brown responds that he 

read Counts VIII and IX of GTS’s counter claims as alleging patent claims against him. Opposition at 2. 

This is based on the fact that GTS incorporated its patent law claims by reference into two copyright 

counts alleged against Brown. Id. at 8-9. Upon review of GTS’s counterclaims, the Court finds it 

obvious that GTS only alleged its patent law claims against BECO; while it alleged copyright 

infringement claims against BECO and Brown. Doc. 95 ¶¶ 406-687. To the extent that this was ever 

unclear, GTS’s briefs on the topic remove any doubt. MTD at 12-14, Reply at 7-9. The Court therefore 

agrees with GTS that these defenses are immaterial and should be stricken. Quintana v. Baca, 233 

F.R.D. 562, 565 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (striking affirmative defenses against claims that had not been 

Case 1:12-cv-01310-LJO-SKO Document 138 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

pleaded). Because it would be futile at this time, Plaintiff is not granted leave to amend these defenses.

For these reasons the Court GRANTS GTS’s motion to strike Brown’s fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, tenth, 

eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenths affirmative 

defense, as well as the last three sentences in his eighth affirmative defense. 

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss and to strike, Doc. 114, as follows: 

Counts I-VI are no longer before this Court. Thus, the Court DENIES as MOOT Defendant’s 

request to dismiss them. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike Brown’s fourth through seventh and tenth 

through eighteenth affirmative defenses, as well as the last three sentences in his eighth affirmative 

defense.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01310-LJO-SKO Document 138 Filed 02/29/16 Page 4 of 4