Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03745/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03745-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

CHARLES CHAPPELLE, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03745-YGR 

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) DENYING 

MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AS 

MOOT; AND (3) SETTING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 60

On September 2, 2015, the Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss three of the four 

causes of action in the initial complaint,1 with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 55.) Any amended 

complaint was to be filed within fourteen days, or by September 16, 2015. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs 

filed a First Amended Complaint on October 23, 2015. (Dkt. No. 56 (“FAC”).)2 Thereafter, on

November 10, 2015, defendant filed both a motion to strike the FAC as untimely (Dkt. No. 57)

and an answer to the FAC (Dkt. No. 58). Plaintiffs opposed the motion on November 23, 2015. 

(Dkt. No. 59.) Defendant failed to file a reply brief in support of the motion by the December 1,

2015 deadline. See Civ. L.R. 7-3.

3

 The Court finds the motion appropriate for decision without 

 

1

The version of the initial complaint filed along with defendant’s notice of removal omits 

two pages apparently containing the third cause of action, which was not challenged in 

defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 2-1.) The causes of action in that complaint were 

apparently (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional misrepresentation; (3) negligent 

misrepresentation; and (4) wrongful foreclosure.

2

The FAC contains two causes of action: (1) breach of contract, and (2) negligent 

misrepresentation. A loan modification agreement is attached as an exhibit to the FAC in support 

of the breach of contract claim, which plaintiffs earlier claimed had been “‘inadvertently not 

attached to the original complaint.’” (Dkt. No. 55 at 2.)

3 Moreover, defendant’s untimely reply fails to respond to the substantive points raised in 

plaintiffs’ opposition brief, largely reiterating the arguments presented in its motion. (See 

generally Dkt. No. 61.) The untimeliness is therefore irrelevant as the brief does not impact the 

outcome addressed herein.

Case 4:14-cv-03745-YGR Document 62 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 3
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

oral argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. 

See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 

(9th Cir. 1991). Thus, the hearing set for December 15, 2015 is VACATED and the motion to 

appear by telephone at the hearing (Dkt. No. 60) is DENIED as moot.

Defendant moves to strike the FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), 

arguing (1) the FAC was untimely filed; and (2) the amended allegation as to Count II (negligent 

misrepresentation) fail to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements.

A court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, 

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “The function of a [Rule] 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, 510 U.S. 517 (1994)). “Motions to strike ‘are generally disfavored 

because they are often used as delaying tactics and because of the limited importance of pleadings 

in federal practice.’” Shaterian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 829 F. Supp. 2d 873, 879 (N.D. Cal. 

2011) (quoting Rosales v. Citibank, Fed. Sav. Bank, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 

2001)). Given the disfavored status of Rule 12(f) motions, “courts often require a showing of 

prejudice by the moving party before granting the requested relief.” Sanchez v. City of Fresno, 

914 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1122 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting California Dep’t of Toxic Substances 

Control v. Alco Pac., Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). “If there is any doubt 

whether the portion to be stricken might bear on an issue in the litigation, the court should deny 

the motion.” Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 925, 930 (N.D. Cal. 

2013) (quoting Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004)). 

Whether to grant a motion to strike is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district 

court. See Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 973 (citing Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th 

Cir. 2000)).

Here, as noted above, defendant first argues that the entire FAC should be stricken as 

untimely. Plaintiffs respond that their initial intent was to rest on the sole remaining cause of 

Case 4:14-cv-03745-YGR Document 62 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

action for negligent representation and not to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 59 at 4.) 

Thereafter, defendant apparently raised an issue of “inconsistencies in the pleadings” resulting 

from “inconsistent versions of the original Complaint,” which prompted plaintiffs to file the FAC. 

(Id.) In light of these circumstances, for which defendant may be partly responsible, the Court 

declines to strike the FAC as untimely.

Defendant next argues the negligent misrepresentation claim should be stricken for failing 

to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements. As a threshold matter, the Court notes 

that this argument is more appropriately raised in the context of a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(6). Regardless, this argument was waived insofar as the present Rule 12(f) motion is 

concerned due to defendant’s failure to raise it in connection with the earlier Rule 12(b)(6) motion 

to dismiss. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) provides that “a party that makes a motion 

under this rule must not make another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that 

was available to the party but omitted from its earlier motion.” One treatise describes the rule as 

follows:

Simply stated, the objective of the . . . rule is to eliminate 

unnecessary delay at the pleading stage. Subdivision (g) 

contemplates the presentation of an omnibus pre-answer motion in 

which the defendant advances every available Rule 12 defense and 

objection he may have that is assertable by motion. The defendant 

cannot delay the filing of a responsive pleading by interposing these 

defenses and objections in piecemeal fashion, but must present them 

simultaneously. Any defense that is available at the time of the 

original motion, but is not included, may not be the basis of a second 

pre-answer motion.

Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1384 (3d ed.). 

In light of the foregoing, the motion is DENIED. The Court SETS a further Case 

Management Conference for January 25, 2016.

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 57, 60.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-03745-YGR Document 62 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 3