Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01670/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01670-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227 FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales

---

1

19cv1670-LAB (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

ANTON EWING,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH PHAIR,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv1670-LAB (MSB)

ORDER STRIKING COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed a complaint bringing claims under the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act. But the complaint includes various warnings and admonitions to 

Defendant Joseph Phair’s attorney. (Compl., ¶¶ 4–10.) Neither Phair nor his 

counsel has made an appearance.

Paragraph 4 instructs Phair’s attorney about pleading affirmative defenses, 

and concludes that certain affirmative defenses (which have not been pled) would 

be a sham. He also cites Civil Local Rule 83.4 and warns Phair’s counsel to obey 

it or face consequences. He claims, among other things, that this rule forbids any 

derogatory statement about him. The complaint also includes language stating 

that Phair’s attorney has already read and agreed to abide by Civil Local Rule 83.4, 

and demands an admission or denial of this averment in the answer. (Compl., ¶ 

7.) He repeatedly admonishes Phair’s attorney not to commit criminal deceit in the 

Case 3:19-cv-01670-LAB-MSB Document 5 Filed 09/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv1670-LAB (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

course of dealings with him. (Id., ¶ 8–9.) He also threatens to file a state bar 

complaint and seek sanctions against Phair’s attorney if he “makes any derogatory 

remarks in his pleadings toward Plaintiff . . . .”) (Id., ¶ 10.)

None of this belongs in a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (giving standards 

for pleadings). Phair’s attorney has not even appeared in this case, and it is 

possible Phair will not retain one. There is no reason at this point for Ewing to 

expect that opposing counsel will commit criminal deceit, to imply that he or she is 

likely to commit criminal deceit or any other ethical violation, or to threaten a bar 

complaint or sanctions. A complaint is not the place for a plaintiff to reprimand 

opposing counsel for things that have not happened, and it is not a contract that a 

plaintiff can use to bind opposing counsel. Ewing is not entitled to demand that 

Phair’s attorney include these admissions or denials in the answer, and his 

unsound legal advice to opposing counsel is not needed or welcome.

Furthermore, the implication that a yet-unknown attorney is likely to commit 

criminal deceit or violate rules of professionalism and civility, in this context, is a 

violation of Civil Local Rule 83.4. The Court notes that Ewing has included similar 

language in numerous other recently-filed cases,1 and admonishes him that he 

must cease doing so immediately. Doing so amounts to a violation of both Civil 

Local Rule 83.4 and the Court’s order of May 29, 2019 in case 18cv1455, Ewing 

v. Oasis Media.

/ / /

 

1 These include 19cv00941 CAB (MSB) Ewing v. United Business Funding, LLC.;

19cv00994 LAB (WVG), Ewing v. Kabbage, Inc.; 19cv01005 BAS (LL), Ewing v. 

Senior Life Planning, LLC; 19cv01031 DMS (AHG), Ewing v. JS Holdings, LLC;

19cv01112 DMS (LL) Ewing v. Oxford Tax Partners, LLC; 19cv01172 CAB-BGS, 

Ewing v. Direct Merchant Funding, Inc. et al.; 19cv01319 LAB (JLB), Ewing v. 

FundShop, LLC; and 19cv01651 DMS (MSB), Ewing et al. v. Gray Wolf 

Technology, LLC. 

Case 3:19-cv-01670-LAB-MSB Document 5 Filed 09/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv1670-LAB (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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) authorizes the Court to strike from a pleading “any 

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter,” and the Court may do 

so sua sponte. Rule 12(f)(1). The complaint is ORDERED STRICKEN. Within 14 

calendar days of the date this order is issued, Ewing may file an amended 

complaint that omits the language from paragraphs 4 through 10. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01670-LAB-MSB Document 5 Filed 09/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3