Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03927/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03927-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-03927-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELEAZAR ZAMBRANO A/K/A 

ELEAZAR ZAMBRANO MAGANA, 

individually and d/b/a TAQUERIA LOS 

PERICOS,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:14-cv-03927-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No. 12

On August 29, 2014, Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint 

against Defendant Eleazar Zambrano, also known as Eleazar Zambrano Magana, doing business as 

Taqueria Los Pericos (“Defendant”) for violations of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

§ 605, the Cable and Television Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. § 553, 

California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code § 17200 et. seq., and for 

conversion. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was granted the exclusive nationwide 

commercial distribution rights to “The One” Floyd Mayweather, Jr. v. Saul Alvarez WBC Light 

Middleweight Championship Program, which aired on September 14, 2013. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant unlawfully intercepted the program and broadcast it in violation of Plaintiff’s exclusive 

license.

Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on January 23, 2015, which included 

affirmative defenses. Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike those defenses 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Federal jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. 

Case 5:14-cv-03927-EJD Document 23 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-03927-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

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

This matter is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

1(b), and the hearing scheduled for June 11, 2015, is VACATED. Having carefully reviewed the 

relevant documents,1the court finds, concludes and orders as follows:

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court to “strike from a pleading an 

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

may be insufficient as a matter of pleading or a matter of law. Sec. People, Inc. v. Classic 

Woodworking, LLC, No. C-04-3133 MMC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44641, at *5, 2005 WL 

645592 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2005). “The key to determining the sufficiency of pleading an 

affirmative defense is whether it gives plaintiff fair notice of the defense.” Wyshak v. City Nat’l 

Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979). While a defense need not include extensive factual 

allegations in order to give fair notice (Sec. People, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44641, at *6), 

bare statements reciting mere legal conclusions may not be sufficient. CTF Dev., Inc. v. Penta 

Hospitality, LLC, No. C 09-02429, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99538, at *21, 2009 WL 3517617 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2009).

A court may also strike matter in an answer that is immaterial or impertinent. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(f). Immaterial matter is “that which has no essential or important relationship to the claim 

for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 

1993), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (quoting 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. 

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382, at 706-07 (1990)). Impertinent matter does not 

pertain, and is not necessary, to the issues in question. Id.

2. Defendant asserted thirteen affirmative defenses in his original Answer. His 

proposed amended pleading reveals he has since abandoned six of those defenses. Accordingly, 

the affirmative defenses based on failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, laches, 

 

1 Defendant’s opposition to the motion should have been filed no later than February 27, 2015, 

under the deadlines imposed by Civil Local Rule 7, and Plaintiff moves to strike the incredibly 

untimely opposition filed on May 28, 2015. For this motion, the court will not grant that request

because Plaintiff has not been particularly prejudiced by the delay, given its ability to file a reply 

prior to the hearing date. Defendant is notified, however, that future untimeliness may not be 

excused. 

Case 5:14-cv-03927-EJD Document 23 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:14-cv-03927-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

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

comparative negligence, third-party negligence, and in pari delicto are each DISMISSED 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

3. This leaves those affirmative defenses based on assumption of risk, unclean hands, 

estoppel, Plaintiff’s liability, other parties’ liability, waiver, and failure to mitigate. Since the 

Answer contains no independent factual assertions, the court finds that these defenses are not 

plead with sufficient particularity to give Plaintiff fair notice of their basis. To that end, Defendant 

did not articulate how Plaintiff assumed the risk or why Plaintiff or another party is liable for the 

conduct described in the Complaint. Defendant also failed to explain why Plaintiff should be 

estopped from asserting its claims, did not state any facts which would amount to “unclean 

hands,” and did not state how Plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages. Without additional factual 

development, Plaintiff cannot ascertain whether or not these defenses are properly asserted in this 

case. See Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2004); see also

CTF Development, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99538, at *22 (“[S]imply stating that a claim fails 

due to plaintiff’s ‘unclean hands’ is not sufficient to notify the plaintiff what behavior has 

allegedly given them ‘unclean hands.’”). 

4. Where a court strikes an affirmative defense, leave to amend should be freely given 

so long as there is no prejudice to the moving party. Wyshak, 607 F.2d at 826. Because these 

defenses may be applicable to this case with additional factual support, the court will allow 

Defendant the opportunity to amend. Such an allowance is not prejudicial to Plaintiff, since 

Plaintiff will also benefit from any factual clarification made in support of the defenses. 

Accordingly, the remaining defenses - those not already dismissed above - are DISMISSED 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended Answer shall be filed on or before June 22, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03927-EJD Document 23 Filed 06/08/15 Page 3 of 3