Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00247/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00247-7/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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 07-00247 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFEX1)

**E-Filed 11/14/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVANZIA, S.L., a Spanish corporation

 Plaintiff,

 v.

LASERSCOPE, INC., a California corporation, and

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a

Minnesota corporation

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-00247 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 1

FILE AMENDED ANSWER AND

OTHERWISE DENYING MOTION

TO STRIKE 

[re: docket no . 51]

Plaintiff Davanzia, S.L. (“Davanzia”) moves to strike the answer of defendant

Laserscope, Inc.’s (“Laserscope”) to Davanzia’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). For the

reasons discussed below, Laserscope will be directed to file an amended response to ¶ 33 of the

SAC, and the motion otherwise will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises from the now-terminated business relationship between Davanzia and

Laserscope, now a subsidiary of American Medical Services, Inc. (“AMS”).

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 71 Filed 11/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Case No. C 07-00247 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFEX1)

On January 12, 2007, Davanzia filed the initial complaint in this action. On January 23,

2007, Davanzia filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC), asserting three claims against

Laserscope and AMS: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

dealing; and (3) breach of express warranty. On March 12, 2007, Laserscope and AMS moved to

dismiss the FAC. Laserscope moved to dismiss the claims against it to the extent that Davanzia’s

alleged damages are based upon the termination of the Agreement; AMS moved to dismiss the

claim against it on the basis that it was not a party to the Agreement. Davanzia opposed each

aspect of the motion. On April 27, 2007, the Court dismissed the FAC with leave to amend. The

Court concluded that Davanzia’s interpretation of the Agreement was unreasonable based upon

the language of the Agreement and the extrinsic evidence then in the record. The Court also

concluded that the FAC included insufficient allegations regarding the alleged alter-ego liability

of AMS. The Court granted leave to amend to allege further facts supporting Davanzia’s

interpretation of the Agreement as reasonable and alter-ego liability on the part of AMS.

On May 29, 2007, Davanzia filed its SAC, asserting the same three claims against the

same defendants. On June 12, 2007, Laserscope and AMS moved to dismiss the SAC, asserting

the same grounds as they previously had asserted with respect to the FAC. On July 30, 2007, the

Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice.

On August 13, 2007, Laserscope filed its answer and counterclaim. In its answer,

Laserscope responded to Davanzia’s allegations, except those relating to the dismissed claims.

On September 4, 2007, Davanzia filed a motion to strike several portions of the answer. On

October 10, 2007, without leave of the Court, Laserscope filed an amended answer. On October

24, 2007, Laserscope filed its opposition to Davanzia’s motion to strike. On October 26, 2007,

Davanzia filed its reply to the opposition. The Court heard oral argument on November 9, 2007.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The Court may strike “from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant,

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “‘Impertinent’ matter

consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question.”

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 71 Filed 11/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Case No. C 07-00247 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFEX1)

Fantasy, Inc. V. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993)(citations omitted, rev’d on other

grounds). See also In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, 114 F.Supp. 2d 955, 965

(2000)(“‘[i]mpertinent’ has been defined as allegations that are not responsive or irrelevant to the

issues that arise in the action.”). 

Motions to strike are generally disfavored. Hart v. Baca, 204 F.R.D. 456, 457 (C.D.Ca.

2001). Motions to strike generally will not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be

stricken could not have any possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation. LeDuc v.

Kentucky Central Life Ins. Co., 814 F. Supp. 820, 830 (N.D. Cal. 1992). Allegations “supplying

background or historical material or other matter of an evidentiary nature will not be stricken

unless unduly prejudicial to defendant.” Id. Moreover, allegations that contribute to a full

understanding of the complaint as a whole need not be stricken. Id.

 However, if a defense is invalid as a matter of law, a motion to strike should be granted

in order to avoid unnecessary expenditure of time and money in litigation, id., or if the matter to

be stricken can have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation. Colaprico v. Sun

Microsystems, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D.Ca. 1991). “If the court chooses to strike a

defense, leave to amend should be freely given so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing

party.” Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315 F.Supp.2d 1046, 1049 (N.D.Cal. 2004). Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(b) (“Rule 8(b)”) requires that a party responding to a complaint

or cross-complaint may do so in only one of three ways. Specifically, it must either (1) admit the

allegations, (2) deny the allegations, or (3) state that it is without knowledge or information to

form a belief as to the truth of an averment. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(b).

III. DISCUSSION

Davanzia moves to strike Laserscope’s answer on the grounds that Laserscope improperly

(1) refused to respond to certain allegations, (2)offered insufficient responses to other allegations

and (3) requested attorneys’ fees. 

Laserscope opposes the motion, arguing (1) it was appropriate for it not to respond to the

dismissed claims, and that (2) it appropriately denied all allegations not expressly admitted or

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 71 Filed 11/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 07-00247 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFEX1)

otherwise qualified. Laserscope states its request for attorneys’ fees was inadvertent, and that it

addressed the issue by removing the request from its amended answer.

While Laserscope was not required to respond to dismissed claims and allegations, it

nonetheless chose to do so, while at the same time noting their dismissal. In so doing, Laserscope

implicated Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(b). Although Laserscope properly should have sought leave of

Court before filing its amended answer, only one provision of the amended answer is decidedly

non-responsive: in answering Davanzia’s complaint alleging that “[t]he laser system was

delivered with serious defects,” (Complaint, ¶ 33) Laserscope states that it “admits that Davanzia

has claimed that the system was defective.” Amended answer, ¶ 33. This is not a proper

admission under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(b). As discussed at oral argument, Laserscope shall

amend its response on or before November 26, 2007. (See Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315

F.Supp.2d 1046, 1049 (N.D.Cal. 2004)(“If the court chooses to strike a defense, leave to amend

should be freely given so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party.”)). 

III. ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before November 26, 2007, Laserscope shall amend its

answer to Davanzia’s ¶ 33 allegation. In light of this Order, Davanzia’s motion to strike therefore

will be denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 13, 2007

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 71 Filed 11/14/07 Page 4 of 4