Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01101/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01101-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

---

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 This order is not designated for publication in the official reporter. 1

Case No. C 08-1101 JF (RS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE

(JFLC2)

**E-filed 7/17/08**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GERALD ROYLANCE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 08-1101 JF (RS)

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 1

MOTION TO STRIKE ELITE’S

ANSWER; AND (2) DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

HADLOCK’S ANSWER 

[re: docket nos. 57, 61]

Plaintiff Gerald Roylance (“Roylance”) moves to strike the answers of Defendants

EliteSecurity.US, LLC (“Elite”) and Sean Hadlock (“Hadlock”). The Court has considered the

briefing submitted by the parties as well as the oral arguments of counsel presented at the hearing

on July 11, 2008. For the reasons discussed below, both motions will be denied. 

Roylance asserts that Elite improperly pleads based upon information and belief, that

Elite should have provided more information, and that Elite has not provided sufficient facts to

support its affirmative defenses. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to

strike “from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

Case 5:08-cv-01101-JF Document 95 Filed 07/17/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Case No. C 08-1101 JF (RS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE

(JFLC2)

scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Here, Roylance does not contend that Elite’s

admissions and denials are redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous, but rather contends

that Elite has access to sufficient information -- through the Internet or other means -- such that

pleading on information and belief is unnecessary. Roylance has not cited, and the Court has not

discovered, any authority for the proposition that a plaintiff may challenge a defendant’s pleading

on information and belief based upon the assertion that the defendant could discover the relevant

facts. Moreover, the Court concludes that Elite’s admissions, denials, and affirmative defenses

are set forth with sufficient particularity to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(b).

Roylance makes the identical arguments with respect to Hadlock’s answer, and those

arguments fail for the reasons discussed above. Roylance also argues that Hadlock failed to file

his answer in a timely fashion and that the answer was not properly signed. Assuming without

deciding that Hadlock’s answer was filed and/or served late, the Court in the exercise of its

discretion will permit the late filing. Roylance has not demonstrated any prejudice from the late

filing. Moreover, any technical defects in the signature on the answer can be cured easily

enough.

ORDER

(1) The motion to strike Elite’s answer is DENIED; and

(2) The motion to strike Hadlock’s answer is DENIED.

DATED: 7/17/08

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-01101-JF Document 95 Filed 07/17/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case No. C 08-1101 JF (RS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE

(JFLC2)

This Order was served on the following persons:

William Donald Chapman wchapman@smithchapman.com 

Michael Dini mdini@turlocklaw.net 

Robert J. Hadlock rhadlock@smithchapman.com 

Paul M. Lavelle plavelle@abbott-simses.com 

Patrick A Long palong@lw-d.com 

Gerald Roylance GLRoylance@email.msn.com 

Richard Michael Simses Rick-Simses@abbott-simses.com 

Abraham H Tang ahtang@lw-d.com 

Case 5:08-cv-01101-JF Document 95 Filed 07/17/08 Page 3 of 3