Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02351/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02351-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOK T. LAU, No. CIV.S-04-2351 WBS DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ANTHONY V. SILVA, P.C.,

et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

This action came before the court on November 17, 2006, for

hearing on plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer and for

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions. Plaintiff, proceeding

pro se, appeared on his own behalf. Joseph Hood appeared as counsel

for defendants Antonio V. Silva, P.C. and Antonio Silva. For the

reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s

motion be denied.

Plaintiff initiated this breach of contract diversity

action by filing his complaint on November 2, 2004. After initially

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 64 Filed 11/20/06 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

26

2

being assigned and re-assigned to a variety of magistrate judges, it

was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21)

on September 27, 2006. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed the

instant motion to strike and for sanctions. Plaintiff contends that

defendants’ answer should be stricken as untimely. In this regard,

plaintiff points out that his amended complaint was filed on

September 16, 2005, but that defendants did not answer until more

than a year later on September 25, 2006. Plaintiff’s contention is

misplaced.

This case has a somewhat cumbersome procedural history. 

Nonetheless, the record indicates that plaintiff filed his initial

complaint on November 2, 2004. A defendant’s answer normally is due

within 20 days after service of the summons and complaint. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). In this case, however, defendants executed a

waiver of service, which resulted in defendants being entitled to

answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within 60 days from the

date the request for waiver was sent. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(a)(1)(B). According to the docket, defendants’ answer therefore

was due on or January 28, 2005. The court recognizes that defendants

did not file an answer prior to January 28, 2005. However, on

January 3, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Having been

filed within 60 days from the date the request for waiver was sent,

that motion was a legitimate and timely response to plaintiff’s

complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(a motion made on any grounds

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 64 Filed 11/20/06 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

26

 The date of service of plaintiff’s amended complaint is not 1

clear in the record, but in any event defendants’ motion to dismiss

the amended complaint was not denied as untimely.

3

enumerated in Rule 12(b) “shall be made before pleading if a further

pleading is permitted”).

By order filed August 31, 2005, the court granted

defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on

September 16, 2005, and it was served around the same time. 

Normally, this would have required defendants’ answer to be filed

within 10 days from the service of the amended complaint. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, defendants again filed a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss on October 4, 2005, which again was a legitimate

response to plaintiff’s amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1

12(b).

By order filed September 11, 2006, defendants’ second

motion to dismiss was denied. Defendants then filed their answer on

September 25, 2006. This was a timely response as well. See

12(a)(4)(A)(if court denies Rule 12(b) motion, response to complaint

“shall be served within 10 days after notice of the court’s action”);

see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(“When the period of time prescribed or

allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and

legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation.”). 

In short, the record indicates that defendants motions to

dismiss and their eventual answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint

were all filed in a timely fashion in accordance with the applicable

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 64 Filed 11/20/06 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

26

 In seeking Rule 11 sanctions, plaintiff appears to argue that 2

defendants should be sanctioned for their, as plaintiff might put it,

audacity in filing an answer in the face of the court’s denial of the

motion to dismiss. This argument reflects plaintiff’s fundamental

misunderstanding of the purposes of motions to dismiss and answers

and therefore lacks merit.

4

rules. There is no basis for striking defendants’ answer, much less

the issuing of Rule 11 sanctions. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion 2

to strike and for sanctions should be denied.

For these reasons, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that

plaintiff’s motion to strike and for sanctions be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations." Any reply to objections shall be served and filed

within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 17, 2006.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\lau2351.f&r

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 64 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 4