Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05129/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05129-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:553 Communications Act of 1994

---

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

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PITTSBURG LODGE NO. 1475, LOYAL 

ORDER OF MOOSE, INCORPORATED, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05129-VC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No. 38

The plaintiff moves to strike all eight of the affirmative defenses raised in Pittsburg Lodge 

No. 1475, Loyal Order of Moose's Amended Answer to the plaintiffs' complaint. The motion is 

granted. 

To avoid spending time and money "litigating spurious issues," Barnes v. AT & T Pension 

Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1170 (N.D. Cal. 2010), a Court may 

strike affirmative defenses that present an "insufficient defense, or any redundant, immaterial, 

impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

The defendant's first, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses are stricken for the reasons given 

in Judge Seeborg's well-reasoned order in J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Bouton, No. 3:12-cv-05762-

RS (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014, Dkt. No. 52).

The defendant's second, third, and fourth affirmative defenses each challenge elements of 

the plaintiff's cause of action, and are therefore stricken as redundant. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal.

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) ("A defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has 

not met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense.").

The defendant's eighth affirmative defense is stricken because even "if it is later found that 

defendant acted unknowingly . . . this point is irrelevant . . . for determining liability." J & J 

Sports Prods., Inc. v. Mendoza-Govan, No. C 10-05123 WHA, 2011 WL 1544886, at *6 (N.D. 

Cal. Apr. 25, 2011).

Case 3:14-cv-05129-VC Document 48 Filed 06/19/15 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

Should the defendant choose to re-plead any affirmative defenses, it has 14 days to file a 

new amended answer. Any such amended answer should include only true affirmative defenses,

see Ford Motor Co. v. Transp. Indem. Co., 795 F.2d 538, 546 (6th Cir. 1986) ("An affirmative 

defense raises matters extraneous to the plaintiff's prima facie case"), and should assert only those 

affirmative defenses for which the defendant can allege the requisite factual support.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05129-VC Document 48 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 2