Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

ORDER DENYING MOTION STRIKE

Case No. 13-cv-00228-RMW - 1 -

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

ADIL K HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

L MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00228-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STRIKE ANSWER OF DEFENDANT 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Re: Dkt. No. 181

Plaintiffs move to strike the amended answer filed by defendant Superior Court of 

California, County of Santa Clara. Dkt. No. 181 (Motion to strike); Dkt. No. 178 (Answer). The 

Answer includes 13 affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs’ claim against the Superior Court is limited to 

the same ADA and Rehabilitation Act claim that Judge Chen found survived a motion to dismiss, 

the only difference being that in the currently operative complaint Adil has also alleged ADA 

violations. See Dkt. No. 163 (Order on motion to strike). This is the second motion to strike the 

Superior Court’s answers. See Dkt. No. 109 (first motion to strike). The court already ruled that 

the Superior Court’s first, second, third, and thirteenth affirmative defenses (previously the sixth, 

twenty-third, thirty-first, and thirty-fourth affirmative defenses) were sufficiently pled. Plaintiffs’ 

further arguments on those defenses are not persuasive. The court previously struck the nine other 

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 192 Filed 02/18/15 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

affirmative defenses without prejudice. Defendant has now added sufficient factual detail to the 

defenses to meet the Twombly and Iqbal1standard. Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

 

1

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 192 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 2