Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00401/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00401-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 1

 Although plaintiff’s motion also references Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, (see Mot. at 5:6-18), plaintiff does not argue for summary judgment, nor has

she submitted evidence in support of summary judgment. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIA CHEVALIER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUTTER HOTEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-07-0401 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO STRIKE; VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is the motion filed January 25, 2008 by plaintiff Kia Chevalier, by

which plaintiff seeks to strike the answer filed by defendant Oakland Sutter Hotel (“Oakland

Sutter”) and the “appearance” of Oakland Sutter’s counsel Robert Wertz.1

 Oakland Sutter

has filed a response; plaintiff has not filed a reply. Having considered the papers filed in

support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for

resolution without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), hereby VACATES the March 7,

2008 hearing on the matter, and rules as follows.

To the extent plaintiff seeks to strike Oakland Sutter’s answer in its entirety as

untimely, or portions thereof, as surplusage and/or otherwise improper, plaintiff’s motion is

Case 3:07-cv-00401-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 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

2

untimely under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f)

(providing, where no responsive pleading is permitted, motion to strike matter from pleading

must be made “within 20 days after being served with the pleading”). On October 9, 2007,

plaintiff was served by mail with Oakland Sutter’s answer. See Answer at 9 (Proof of

Service); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(C) (providing service by mail “is complete upon

mailing”). Pursuant to Rule 12(f), plaintiff could have brought a timely motion to strike all or

part of Oakland Sutter’s answer if such motion were filed on or before October 29, 2007; as

noted, plaintiff filed the instant motion to strike on January 25, 2008. 

Additionally, to the extent plaintiff further requests that the Court enter a default

judgment against Oakland Sutter, (see Mot. at 2:17-19 (stating plaintiff entitled to default

judgment)), plaintiff’s motion is procedurally improper, for the reason that the Clerk of Court

has not entered default against Oakland Sutter. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a), 55(b)(2); Eitel v.

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) (describing two-step process, required by

Rule 55, of first obtaining entry of default by the clerk, and, second, seeking default

judgment from the court). Further, even were it procedurally proper, the Court would

decline to enter default judgment in this instance, where Oakland Sutter submitted its

responsive pleading eight days beyond the prescribed deadline. See id. at 1472 (holding

late-filed responsive pleading justified denial of default judgment); Mitchell v. Brown &

Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1317 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding late-filed motion

to dismiss, along with participation in removal and notice of appearance by defendant,

justified denial of default judgment). 

Lastly, to the extent plaintiff moves to strike the appearance of defense counsel for

the asserted reason that defense counsel “represents a Co-defendant that has yet to be

joined in the lawsuit,” (see Mot. at 2:10-15), plaintiff fails to present sufficient grounds for

disqualification. At present, defense counsel represents only defendant Oakland Sutter,

and, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the mere fact that defense counsel has been retained 

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-00401-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 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

3

by a defendant’s insurer does not create grounds for disqualification.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to strike is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00401-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 3