Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00279/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00279-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YUE ZHOU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WANG’S RESTAURANT,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-0279 PVT

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO

COMPLY WITH FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 8 AND 11

It has come to the court’s attention that Defendant failed to comply with Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 8(b) when it filed its answer. Therefore, based on the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than December 6, 2006, Defendant shall file an

amended answer that complies with Rules 8(b) and 11. Failure to file a proper answer will result in

an order to show cause why the answer should not be stricken.

Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires defendants to admit or deny

specifically a complaint’s allegations to “apprise the opponent of the allegations in the complaint that

stand admitted and will not be in issue at trial and those that are contested and will require proof to

be established to enable plaintiff to prevail.” 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 1261. A defendant may only use a general denial when it intends to controvert all of the

complaint’s averments, including averments as to the court’s jurisdiction. See FED.R.CIV.PRO. 8(b). 

Case 5:05-cv-00279-PVT Document 113 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER, page 2

Rule 8 expressly reminds litigants that such a general denial is subject to the obligations set forth in

Rule 11. Ibid. 

In the present case, no competent attorney could reasonably deny that this court has

jurisdiction over this case. Defendant’s assertion of 29 affirmative defenses, most of which are

patently frivolous, was also insupportable under the facts of this case that any attorney would have

learned after reasonable inquiry of his client. Thus, Defendant’s answer violated Rule 11, and is

subject to being stricken by the court. See, e.g., Pentalpha Macau Commercial Offshore, Ltd. v.

Reddy, 2005 WL 2562624 (N.D.Cal. Oct 12, 2005); see also, Gilbert v. Johnston, 127 F.R.D. 145,

146 (N.D.Ill. 1989).

Rather than impose sanctions at this time, however, the court will allow Defendant an

opportunity to cure its error by filing an amended answer nunc pro tunc that complies with Rules 8

and 11.

Dated: 11/17/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00279-PVT Document 113 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 2