Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01412/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01412-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

AIRCARGO COMMUNITIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

9T TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01412-JCS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Plaintiff Aircargo Communities, Inc. (“Aircargo”) moves to strike the affirmative defenses 

presented in Defendant 9T Technologies, LLC’s First Amended Answer pursuant to Rule 12(f) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Mot. (dkt. 14). 

“The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that 

must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . .” 

Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fantasy, Inc. v. 

Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993)). Although Rule 12(f) allows a motion to strike 

“insufficient defense[s],” such motions “are not favored by the federal courts because of their 

somewhat dilatory and often harrassing [sic] character.” 5C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & 

Procedure Civil § 1381 (3d ed. rev. Apr. 2015).

 Aircargo’s Motion does not identify any way in which the defenses at issue are likely to 

cause an expenditure of time or money, or any other form of prejudice. Absent such a showing, 

striking the defenses would represent merely “an empty formalism.” See Hernandez v. Balakian, 

No. CV-F-06-1383 OWW/DLB, 2007 WL 1649911, at *9 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2007). The Motion 

to Strike is therefore DENIED, without prejudice to Aircargo seeking summary judgment with 

Case 3:15-cv-01412-JCS Document 16 Filed 06/03/15 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

respect to any affirmative defenses that continue to be asserted at the time dispositive motions are

filed.

1

 The June 26, 2015 hearing is VACATED, and the parties’ stipulation (dkt. 15) regarding a 

briefing schedule and continued hearing date for the Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

 

1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all 

purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 3:15-cv-01412-JCS Document 16 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 2