Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02665/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02665-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

 Rule 7(a) provides: “There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim

denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim; a third-party

complaint, if a person who was not an original party is summoned under the provisions of Rule 14;

- 1 - 06cv2665

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL RENARD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06-CV-2665 H

(BLM)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

STRIKE AND FOR A MORE

DEFINITE STATEMENT

vs.

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT

DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Defendants.

On May 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 79.)

On June 8, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 114.) On July 16,

2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike certain defenses from Defendants’ motion to

dismiss and asking the Court to order a more definite statement as to certain arguments

in the motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 117.) Defendants filed a response in opposition

on July 26, 2007, arguing that Plaintiff’s motion is inapplicable to their motion to

dismiss. (Doc. No. 118.) Plaintiff filed a reply in support of his motion on August 1,

2007. (Doc. No. 119.) The Court exercises its discretion under Civil Local Rule

7.1(d)(1) and finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument.

As an initial matter, Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth

the limited documents considered “pleadings” within the federal courts.1 In contrast,

Case 3:06-cv-02665-H-BLM Document 120 Filed 08/06/07 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 and a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleading shall be allowed,

except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer.”

- 2 - 06cv2665

Rule 7(b) describes “motions” and “other papers” contemplated by the Federal Rules.

A party may file a motion to strike under Rule 12(f), which provides that the

court may strike “any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,

or scandalous matter” from any pleading. “‘[T]he function of a 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.’” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d

1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880,

885 (9th Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994)). Rule 12(f) motions

to strike are generally disfavored. See e.g., Stanbury Law Firm v. I.R.S., 221 F.3d

1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000). Importantly, only pleadings are subject to a motion to

strike. Improper motions, declarations, or other material not contained in pleadings

cannot be stricken under Rule 12(f). See, e.g., A.H. Robins Co., 697 F2d at 885.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike arguments from Defendants’motionto dismiss

is improper.

Similarly, Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to

order a more definite statement in response to pleading deficiencies: “If a pleading to

which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot

reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more

definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading.” Rule 12(e) only

contemplates a more definite statement with regard to pleadings, however, and it does

not provide any mechanism through which a party may obtain a more definite statement

as to a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a more definite statement

as to Defendants’ motion to dismiss is also improper.

In short, Plaintiff’s motion fails because neither a motion to strike nor a motion

for more definite statement applies in the context of a motion to dismiss. Accordingly,

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike or for a more definite statement. 

Case 3:06-cv-02665-H-BLM Document 120 Filed 08/06/07 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 - 06cv2665

Additionally, much of Plaintiff’s motion attacks the sufficiency of Defendants’

arguments raised in their motion to dismiss. The Court notes that Plaintiff may raise

any perceived deficiencies in Defendants’ motion in his opposition to the motion to

dismiss. As noted in a previous scheduling order, Plaintiff shall file any opposition to

Defendants’ motion to dismiss by August 13, 2007. Defendants may file any reply by

August 20, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 6, 2007

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies To:

Daniel Renard, pro se

P.O. Box 6301

San Diego, CA 92166

All Counsel of Record

Case 3:06-cv-02665-H-BLM Document 120 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 3