Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04589/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04589-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO-ANTONIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUADALUPE ANTONIO BUENO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.18-cv-04589-JSC 

ORDER RE: AMENDED ANSWERS

Re: Dkt. No. 13

Plaintiff Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio sues Guadalupe Antonio Bueno and Golden Valley 

& Associates, Inc. (together, “Defendants”) seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged 

violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq (“ADA”), and 

California state law violations of the Health and Safety Code and Civil Code.1 (Dkt. No. 1.)2 

Defendant Bueno’s answer to Plaintiff’s complaint asserts 34 affirmative defenses. (Dkt. No. 9.) 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant Bueno’s affirmative 

defenses, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (Dkt. No. 13.) 

Defendant Bueno shall file an amended answer within 14 days of the date of this Order. 

The answer shall not include any affirmative defenses that are not as a legal matter 

affirmative defenses. Nor shall it include any affirmative defenses that Defendant Bueno 

does not have a good faith basis to allege. Plaintiff’s deadline to move to strike whatever 

affirmative defenses remain in the amended answer or otherwise respond to the amended answer, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2), is stayed until further order of the Court. Such a procedure is consistent 

with General Order 56 which seeks to give the parties an opportunity to resolve the lawsuit before 

 

1 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 4, 19, 20.)

2 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 

Case 3:18-cv-04589-JSC Document 32 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1 of 2
2

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

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

needlessly expending resources on litigation. The same stay applies to Plaintiff’s deadline to 

respond to Defendant Golden Valley & Associates, Inc.’s answer. Instead, within 14 days of the 

date of this Order, Golden Valley & Associates, Inc. shall file an amended answer that does not 

include any affirmative defenses that are not as a legal matter affirmative defenses, nor any 

affirmative defenses that Defendant Golden Valley does not have a good faith basis to allege. 

The parties should thereafter follow the procedures set forth in General Order 56. If at 

some point Plaintiff believes he needs a ruling on a motion to strike affirmative defenses in order 

to move the case forward, he shall file a written request with the Court that explains why a ruling 

is needed, that is, how it will move the case forward given its current posture. Unless and until the 

Court rules that such a motion may be filed, Plaintiffs shall not file a motion to strike any 

affirmative defenses. 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 13. The hearing scheduled for November 29, 2018 is 

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

November 26, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-04589-JSC Document 32 Filed 11/26/18 Page 2 of 2