Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02246/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02246-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1030 Fraud &amp; Related Activity in Connection with Computers

---

1

18-CV-2246 W (MSB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BAY VISTA METHODIST HEIGHTS 

INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DENISE BENZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-2246 W (MSB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE [DOC. 12]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of Defendants’ 

Answer. [Doc. 12.] Defendants oppose. [Doc. 13.] The Court decides the matter on the 

papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For 

the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:18-cv-02246-W-MSB Document 19 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18-CV-2246 W (MSB)

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

I. BACKGROUND

On September 26, 2018, Plaintiffs Bay Vista Methodist Heights Inc. and Synergy 

Cowork Centre, LLC filed a complaint against Defendants Denise Benz, Denise Benz 

Business Consultant and Talent Agency, and Authentic Speakers Agency, alleging: (1) 

misappropriation of trade secrets; (2) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.; (3) violation 

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (4) violation of Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 17200,

et seq.; (5) breach of fiduciary duty and the duty of loyalty; (6) interference with 

prospective economic relations; (7) conversion; (8) violation of the Computer Fraud and 

Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030; (9) violation of Cal. Penal Code § 502; and (10) violation 

of Cal. Penal Code § 632. (Compl. [Doc. 1].) 

On November 21, 2018, Defendants filed an Answer. (Answer [Doc 10].) The

Answer included an introduction section that alleged, inter alia, criminal activity by a 

family member of a Bay Vista executive, untethered to any claims for relief in the 

Complaint. (See Answer [Doc. 10] 1:14–3:13.) 

On December 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike this introduction section

from the Answer, along with all twenty-seven of the Answer’s affirmative defenses. 

(Pls.’ Mot. to Strike [Doc 12].) Defendants’ opposition to that motion repeated the 

inflammatory material from the Answer virtually word-for-word. (Defs.’ Opp’n [Doc. 

13] 4:14–6:13.) For the reasons that follow, the motion to strike will be granted.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:18-cv-02246-W-MSB Document 19 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18-CV-2246 W (MSB)

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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(f) allows a court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any 

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “The 

court may act . . . on its own[,] or . . . on motion made by a party either before responding 

to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the 

pleading.” Id. “ ‘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), rev’d 

on other grounds by 510 U.S. 517 (1994)). Motions to strike are generally disfavored

and are “usually . . . denied unless the allegations in the pleading have no possible 

relation to the controversy, and may cause prejudice to one of the parties.” See Travelers 

Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Dunmore, 2010 WL 5200940, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2010).

Redundant matter is the needless repetition of assertions. See Dunmore, 2010 WL 

5200940, at *3. “ ‘Immaterial matter is that which has no essential or important 

relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being plead.’ ” Whittlestone, 618 F.3d 

at 974 (quoting Fogerty, 984 F.2d at 1527). “Impertinent matter consists of statements 

that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question.” Id. (internal 

quotation omitted). “Scandalous matters are allegations that unnecessarily reflect . . . on 

the moral character of an individual or state . . . anything in repulsive language that 

detracts from the dignity of the court.” Consumer Solutions REO, LLC v. Hillery, 658 F. 

Supp. 2d 1002, 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 1, 5 

(D.D.C. 2004)).

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:18-cv-02246-W-MSB Document 19 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18-CV-2246 W (MSB)

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

III. DISCUSSION

A. Immaterial, Impertinent, and Scandalous Matter

The allegations in the introductory portion of Defendants’ Answer (and repeated 

almost verbatim in the opposition to the instant motion) are untethered to the claims in 

the Complaint and unnecessarily reflect on the moral character of nonparties. (See

Answer [Doc. 10] 1:14–3:13; Defs.’ Opp’n [Doc. 13] 4:14–6:13.) Defendants attempt to 

justify the material’s inclusion by stating that “Plaintiff’s Complaint is a searing attack on 

Ms. Benz[,]” that “the [i]ntroduction provides context for the Court to understand both 

sides’ positions at the outset of the case[,]” and “[t]he [i]ntroduction sets forth bases for 

impeachment of Defendants’ witnesses at trial.” (Defs.’ Opp’n [Doc. 13] 1:8–24.) This 

is not persuasive. The material does not need to be filed in an answer in order for it to be 

used in impeachment.1

The material has no place in the Answer, or in an opposition to a motion to strike. 

It does not belong. The above-referenced sections will be stricken from both documents

as immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 

B. Affirmative Defenses

Plaintiffs move to strike the affirmative defenses contained within the Answer. 

(Pls.’ Mot. [Doc. 12-1] 6–8.) They do not provide any reasoning as to why the defenses 

might be insufficient other than to group all 27 defenses together and argue generally that 

the facts in the Answer are insufficient to put them on notice. As Plaintiffs fail to 

demonstrate that the defenses are insufficient, the motion to strike them will be denied

without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

//

//

 

1 The Court does not now decide the admissibility of this matter for the purposes of impeachment.

Case 3:18-cv-02246-W-MSB Document 19 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18-CV-2246 W (MSB)

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

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

[Doc. 12.]

Specifically, it is GRANTED as to the introduction section of the Answer.

It is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the affirmative defenses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02246-W-MSB Document 19 Filed 02/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5