Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03173/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03173-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

DAVID MORGENSTEIN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, a Delaware corporation, 

and DOES 1-50, inclusive 

 Defendant. 

Case No: C 09-03173 SBA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND ACTION TO 

STATE COURT AND GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE 

PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT AT&T 

MOBILITY'S ANSWER TO THE 

COMPLAINT

[Docket Nos. 7, 10]

 The parties appeared before the Court on December 8, 2009, for Plaintiff's Motion to 

Remand Action to State Court and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant AT&T 

Mobility's Answer to the Complaint. Having reviewed the papers submitted, considered the 

arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Action to State Court is DENIED. 

2. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant AT&T Mobility's Answer to the 

Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 

a. Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's general denial is GRANTED. Defendant 

shall, if it has not already done so, file an amended answer on or before January 15, 

2010, that conforms with FRCP 8(b)(3); and 

b. Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's affirmative defenses is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 12/29/09 ____________________________ 

Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-03173-SBA Document 52 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 1