Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

2

 Akel represents himself in this matter.

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 10/10/2006**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SYNAPSIS, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EVERGREEN DATA SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION TO

STRIKE WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

[re: docket no. 150]

EVERGREEN DATA SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

 Counter-Claimants,

v.

WILLIAM AKEL, et al.,

 Counter- Defendants.

 

Defendants and counter-claimants Evergreen Data Systems, Inc. (“Evergreen”); Bruce R.

McAllister (“McAllister”); and Steven J. DeMartini (“DeMartini”) (Collectively, “CounterClaimants”) move to strike portions of the answer of counter-defendant William Akel (“Akel”)2

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 180 Filed 10/10/06 Page 1 of 7
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

 Akel argues that Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to the motion to strike, including the Declaration

of Jonathan Pink should be stricken on the basis that the documents: (a) constitute evidence

outside the pleading; (b) are not subject to judicial notice; and (c) constitute inadmissible

hearsay. However, a Court may strike portions of a pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), but this rule

does not grant the Court the power to strike exhibits to a motion to strike.

2

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC1)

to their counterclaim. Akel opposes the motion. The Court heard oral argument on October 6,

2006. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion, with leave to amend. 

I. BACKGROUND

On January 10, 2005, Synapsis filed the original complaint in the instant action against

Defendants Evergreen, McAllister, DeMartini, Ireland San Filippo, LLP (“ISF”), and Does 1

through 10. On July 13, 2005, this Court issued an order granting the motion of Defendants

Evergreen, McAllister, and DeMartini to dismiss Synapsis’s first five claims with leave to

amend. On August 10, 2005, Synapsis filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging: (1) violations

of RICO, (2) breach of contract, (3) intentional interference with prospective economic

advantage, (4) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, (5) fraud, and (6)

trade libel and slander. On January 9, 2006, this Court issued an order granting ISF’s motion to

dismiss with leave to amend. This order also denied in part and granted in part, without leave to

amend, the motion to dismiss of Defendants Evergreen, McAllister, and DeMartini. On March 8,

2006, Synapsis filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging (1) breach of contract, (2)

fraud, (3) trade libel and slander, and (4) conversion. On September 12, 2006, the Court granted

ISF’s motion for summary judgment. 

On January 30, 2006, Defendants Evergreen, McAllister, and DeMartini filed an answer

and counter-claim against Synapsis and Akel, the President of Synapsis. Counter-Claimants

made seven counter-claims, including four against Akel: Intentional Interference with

Prospective Economic Relationships; Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic

Relations; Inducing Breach of Contract; and Unfair Competition. Akel answered the counterclaim on August 11, 2006. Counter-Claimants sent Akel a letter pointing out perceived

deficiencies in Akel’s answer on August 23, 2006. Motion to Strike Ex. 1.3 Akel responded by

letter on August 24, 2006, declining to remedy these perceived deficiencies. Id. at Ex. 3. 

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 180 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 7
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

4

 Counter-Claimants have complained that Akel has failed to provide a physical street

address and a fax number as required by Local Rule 3-4. Motion to Strike 8. Akel agreed at oral

argument to accept the emailing of a PDF document or the mailing of materials to his post office

box (“P.O. Box”) as sufficient service for the purposes of this litigation. Akel represented that

his P.O. Box is large enough to contain an 8 1/2 x 11 inch envelope and that he also is able to

receive larger materials. The Court therefore deems service on Mr. Akel via U.S. mail to his P.O.

Box or via PDF to be adequate. 

5

 These paragraphs correspond to the similarly numbered paragraphs in the counterclaim.

3

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC1)

Counter-Claimants moved to strike portions of Akel’s answer on August 25, 2006. Akel filed

opposition to this motion on September 5, 2006 (“Opposition”). Counter-Claimants replied on

September 19, 2006 (“Reply”). The Court heard oral argument on October 6, 2006. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A court may “order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant,

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Motions to strike are

generally disfavored. Hart v. Baca, 204 F.R.D. 456, 457 (C.D.Ca. 2001). However, if a defense

is invalid as a matter of law, a motion to strike should be granted in order to avoid unnecessary

expenditure of time and money in litigation, id., or if the matter to be stricken can have no

possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation. Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758

F.Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D.Ca. 1991). “If the court chooses to strike a defense, leave to amend

should be freely given so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party.” Qarbon.com Inc.

v. eHelp Corp., 315 F.Supp.2d 1046, 1049 (N.D.Cal. 2004). 

III. DISCUSSION

Counter-Claimants move to strike five paragraphs of Akel’s answer, Akel’s third and

seventh affirmative defenses, and Akel’s prayer for relief. For the reasons discussed below, the

Court will grant this motion with leave to amend.4

A. Lack of Specificity in Five Paragraphs

Counter-Claimants move to strike paragraphs four, five, ten, eleven, and twelve of Akel’s

answer to the counter-claim.5 Paragraph four reads: “CD-Akel admits in part and denies in part

the allegations in paragraph 4 of the counter-claim.” Paragraphs ten, eleven, and twelve read

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 180 Filed 10/10/06 Page 3 of 7
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

6

 Akel requests that, if the Court orders him to augment his answer, it “specifically advise

within Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) what and how far CD-Akel is supposed to interpret the five allegations

of C-Claimants.” Opposition 4. Akel also asks the Court to issue “rules of conduct between

‘counsel.’” Opposition 10. The Court cannot issue such advice, but instead must limit itself to

resolving the issues before it. However, the Court will advise both parties to continue to abide by

all applicable rules of procedure in the future. Moreover, the Court encourages both parties to

cooperate in resolving any future disputes.

4

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC1)

similarly, with only the paragraph number changed. Paragraph five reads: “CD-Akel denies in

part and admits in part the allegations in paragraph 5 of the counter-claim.” 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b) provides that “[w]hen a pleader intends in good faith

to deny only a part or a qualification of an averment, the pleader shall specify so much of it as is

true and shall deny only the remainder.” Akel’s answers do not meet the requirement that a

pleader “specify so much of it as is true.” Akel argues that “[i]f an allegation were a compound

statement, the appropriate admit or deny addressed both the first and second part of the

compound allegation.” Opposition 3. This is not sufficient to satisfy Rule 8(b)’s specificity

requirement. It is not the responsibility of the Counter-Claimants or the Court to determine

which parts of the allegation a pleader admits or denies. The Court therefore will grant the

motion to strike with leave to amend with respect to paragraphs four, five, ten, eleven, and

twelve of the answer.6

B. Third Affirmative Defense: Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Venue

Counter-Claimants move to strike Akel’s third affirmative defense. This defense bears

the title “Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Venue.” The body of the defense reads: “CounterClaimants pleading is deficient against CD-Akel and like state sovereign immunity, CD-Akel

does not grant consent and waiver to this action.” Answer 7. The defense thus combines

arguments of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and state sovereign immunity. Akel suggests

elsewhere in the opposition that he was improperly joined and improperly served. Opposition 2. 

However, Akel does not mention joinder or service in his affirmative defense, nor make an

argument to that end in Section III.A., the relevant section of the opposition. While CounterClaimants attempt to rebut such implications, the Court will not speculate as to the content of

such arguments. 

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 180 Filed 10/10/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC1)

The Court concludes that it should determine the validity of an affirmative defense of

lack of jurisdiction and improper venue at this time in order to avoid needless expenditure of

time and money in the future. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the counter-claim,

since the counter-claim arises from “the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the

opposing party’s claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The counter-claim does not destroy diversity

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), which pertains to additional claims lodged by plaintiffs,

not to a counter-claim asserted by defendants. Akel argues that this district cannot be a proper

venue for the action because this Court does not have jurisdiction; since this Court does have

jurisdiction, this argument is meritless. Counter-Claimants assert, and Akel does not contest, that

all defendants reside in the Northern District of California. Venue is thus proper in this Court

under 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)-(b) (venue is proper in “a judicial district where any defendant resides,

if all defendants reside in the same State”). The third affirmative defense is invalid as a matter of

law to the extent that it argues a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. 

The instant action does not include California, Nevada, or any other state as a party. State

sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment thus have no possible bearing on the instant

case.

C. Seventh Affirmative Defense: Fraudulent Representation 

Counter-Claimants move to strike Akel’s seventh affirmative defense. This defense bears

the title “Fraudulent Representation.” The body of the defense reads: 

Counter-Claimants allegations are deceptive, misleading and a distortion of the

truth. Counter-Claimants contributory negligence is the proximate cause of

injuries, if any. CD-Akel did not assent to any assumption of risk for interaction

between Counter-Claimants and Counter-Defendant Synapsis, and will show

Counter-Claimants allegations as plead to this Court are not within the meaning

and spirit of, as an example, Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et. seq.

Answer 7. As currently pled, the seventh affirmative defense is insufficient because any

reference Akel makes to fraud pertains to Counter-Claimants’ allegations themselves, not to the

facts underlying the present action. Akel also fails to explain the relationship between

“fraudulent representation,” “contributory negligence,” and “assumption of risk” in this defense. 

D. Prayer for Relief

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 180 Filed 10/10/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC1)

Counter-Claimants move to strike Akel’s prayer for “an award for damages from fraud by

Counter-Claimants to cause personal injury to CD-Akel, including damage to CD-Akel’s

reputation.” Answer 8. An answer may state counter-claims or cross-claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 13. 

Akel has not attempted to assert such a counter-claim against Counter-Claimants. Akel thus has

articulated no basis for a prayer for damages.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Counter-Claimants’

motion to strike is GRANTED with leave to amend. Counter-defendant Akel shall file an

amended answer to the counter-claims on or before October 30, 2006.

DATED: October 10, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 180 Filed 10/10/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

William Shibly Akel wmakel@counterstrike.com 

Daniel C. DeCarlo decarlo@lbbslaw.com, kkim@lbbslaw.com; pink@lbbslaw.com;

creyes@lbbslaw.com 

Manuel Albert Martinez MMartinez@steinlubin.com, msaephan@steinlubin.com 

Jonathan S. Pink pink@lbbslaw.com, creyes@lbbslaw.com 

Michael Navid Radparvar radparvar@lbbslaw.com, 

Jeffrey F. Sax jsax@sswesq.com 

Notice will be delivered by other means to: 

H Joseph Nourmand 

H Joseph Nourmand Law Offices

660 S. Figueroa Street

24th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 180 Filed 10/10/06 Page 7 of 7