Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00494/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00494-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amy Patterson,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Two Fingers LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00494-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

 Before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff Amy 

Patterson’s Complaint (Doc. 12). For the following reasons, the Motion will be granted 

in part and denied in part. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff alleges that sometime in late 2013, Defendant Joseph Popo, the 

“managing member” of three restaurants at which Plaintiff worked, began engaging in 

“systematic and continuous sexual harassment of Plaintiff.” (Doc. 1 at 2, 4.) According 

to the Complaint, Popo also “repeatedly and aggressively treated her in a derogatory 

manner” by “using swear words toward Plaintiff” and “yelling” at her. (Id. at 7.) Despite 

repeated requests to desist, Popo allegedly refused to do so. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff alleges 

the abuse and harassment became so severe that she eventually quit working for 

Defendants in December 2014. (Id. at 5-6.) She then filed this suit, which charges Popo 

Case 2:15-cv-00494-NVW Document 43 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

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 the three restaurants he manages with Title VII sexual harassment, intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, battery, assault, and defamation. (Id. at 10-13.) 

 Two weeks later, Defendants filed a Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint 

against Plaintiff and her attorney, Peter K. Strojnik, seeking damages and injunctive relief 

on ten causes of action, including business disparagement, wrongful interference with 

business relationships, libel per se, and trade libel. (Doc. 8.) The fine details of 

Defendants’ allegations are not important to the pending Motion. In sum, Defendants 

allege that Plaintiff welcomed and reciprocated Popo’s sexual advances, that she resigned 

in December 2014 because a customer had complained about her on Yelp, and that she 

and Strojnik subsequently “conspired with one another to extort money from Popo by 

threatening the disclosure of work related communications, potential criminal activity, 

and alleged affairs to the public at large.” (Doc. 8 at 4-6.) 

 Plaintiff’s defamation cause of action and one of her intentional infliction of 

emotional distress causes of action are grounded in the following allegations in her 

Complaint: 

40. During the pre-litigation to this matter, in an effort to warn other 

women of the alleged predatory nature of Popo, Plaintiff distributed flyers 

advising of the allegations in this matter. Only a few hours after the flyers 

were distributed, Popo and the corporate Defendants directly or indirectly 

published the following defamatory statements about Plaintiff on a public 

forum called thedirty.com: 

41. Statement No. 1: A person who calls himself 

“Amypattersonisawhore” defamed Plaintiff as follows: “This girl Amy 

Patterson is such a whore. Everyone knows she fucks anything and 

everything, she sends nude photos to everyone. I’ll have to dig some out, 

Amy. I still have them. I heard you filed this BS. . . Nice try looking for a 

payday but everyone in Scottsdale knows you’re a lying whore. Stop 

spreading your STDs while you are at it. There’s enough herpes and genital 

warts. Thank God the one you gave me was curable. GTFO here. Everyone 

is laughing at your fake shit.” 

42. Statement No. 2: A person who calls himself “Anonymous” defamed 

Plaintiff as follows: “Just another slut trying to lie and get some money out 

of it. . .not surprised if she knew exactly what she was doing the whole 

time.” 

Case 2:15-cv-00494-NVW Document 43 Filed 05/15/15 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

43. Statement No. 3: A person who calls himself 

“Amypattersonisawhore” defamed Plaintiff as follows: “Of course she 

knew. She was looking for a payday the whole time. The only problem is 

Amy Patterson is huge whore with the std’s to prove it. Typical Scottsdale 

whore looking for free money and tired of ‘working.’ Well, if Amy 

Patterson does score some cash, she should spend every dollar on Valtrex 

and plastic surgery.” Valtrex is a drug used to treat certain sexually 

transmitted diseases. 

. . . 

71. The corporate Defendants and Popo, directly or indirectly, upon 

information and belief, published or caused to be published the defamatory 

statements referenced herein. 

72. The statements made were false and were published in a public 

forum for millions of persons to view. 

73. The corporate Defendants’ and Popo’s defamatory statements were 

done with malice, and evil heart, and were so outrageous and so likely to 

cause tremendous harm to Plaintiff thereby entitling her to punitive 

damages. Defendants first subjected Plaintiff to sexual harassment and 

sexual assault only to follow by calling her a whore and accusing her of 

having sexually transmitted diseases after she sought to protect her rights. 

. . . 

74. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations heretofore set forth. 

75. In directly or indirectly publishing the defamatory statements 

mentioned herein, the corporate Defendants’ and Popo’s conduct were 

extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency, and utterly 

intolerable in a civilized community in any setting, e.g. characterizing 

Plaintiff as a whore who carries and transfers sexually transmitted diseases 

after she sought to protect her rights. 

76. The corporate Defendants’ and Popo’s conduct were intended to 

cause and/or was done with reckless disregard of the near certainty that 

Plaintiff would suffer severe emotional distress. 

(Doc. 1 at 9-10, 13.) In addition, the Complaint’s “Factual Background” section contains 

the following allegation: 

38. Popo’s and the corporate Defendants’ disregard for the law is a 

pattern and not simply limited to Title VII and common law. On strong 

information and belief, the corporate Defendants employ 35-40 

undocumented workers in violation of federal law. On strong information 

and belief, Popo has instructed managers and consultants for the corporate 

Defendant restaurants to not E-verify kitchen staff. 

(Id. at 9.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00494-NVW Document 43 Filed 05/15/15 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

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 

 Defendants’ Motion asks the court to strike the above paragraphs of the Complaint 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which provides, “The court may strike from 

a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 

scandalous matter.” 

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

 “The 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.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Nevertheless, “Motions to strike are generally disfavored and are not granted unless it is 

clear that the matter sought to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject 

matter of the litigation. Consequently, when a court considers a motion to strike, it ‘must 

view the pleading in a light most favorable to the pleading party.’” Kosta v. Del Monte 

Corp., No.: 12-cv-01722-YGR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69319, at *11-12 (N.D. Cal. May 

15, 2013) (citations omitted). 

 Rule 12(f) is primarily concerned with relevance. Matter is “immaterial” if it “has 

no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being 

pleaded” and is “impertinent” if it “consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not 

necessary, to the issues in question.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th 

Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994). The 

Rule is not a mechanism for challenging the factual accuracy of a complaint’s allegations. 

A “disputed question of fact cannot be decided on motion to strike.” Morell v. United 

States, 185 F.R.D. 116, 118 (D.P.R. 1999) (quoting Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 

306 F.2d 862, 868 (3d Cir. 1962)); see also Bennett v. Spoor Behrins Campbell & Young, 

Inc., 124 F.R.D. 562, 563 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (“The general policy is that the pleadings 

should be treated liberally, and that a party should have the opportunity to support his 

contentions at trial.”). Accordingly, “As with motions to dismiss, when ruling on a 

motion to strike, the Court takes the plaintiff’s allegations as true and must liberally 

Case 2:15-cv-00494-NVW Document 43 Filed 05/15/15 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

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 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Baughman v. 

Roadrunner Commc’ns, LLC, No. CV-12-565-PHX-SMM, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

114865, at *4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 13, 2013). 

 In this case, Defendants do not contest that paragraphs 40-43 and 71-76 of the 

Complaint are relevant to Plaintiff’s defamation and intentional infliction of emotional 

distress claims. The statements made by “Anonymous” and “Amypattersonisawhore” 

plainly have an “essential or important relationship” to Plaintiff’s claim that she was 

defamed, as those statements constitute the alleged defamation. Instead, Defendants 

assert that Plaintiff lacks a basis for alleging it was Defendants who authored the 

anonymous comments in paragraphs 41-43. “Without information as to the source of the 

alleged statements,” Defendants argue, “Plaintiff should not be allowed to assert 

prejudicial allegations without a shred of evidence as to the identity of the individual 

authoring such statements.” (Doc. 12 at 6.) But a plaintiff is under no obligation to 

explain in her complaint how she formed a belief in the facts she alleges. And as 

explained above, Rule 12(f) is not designed to address factual disputes. Plaintiff has 

alleged, “upon information and belief,” that Defendants “directly or indirectly . . . 

published or caused to be published” the statements in question. (Doc. 1 at 13.) At this 

stage of the proceedings, that is sufficient for purposes of Rule 12(f). Accordingly, the 

court cannot strike paragraphs 40-43 or 71-76 under that rule. 

 Of course, independent of Rule 12(f), an attorney is prohibited from pleading facts 

that he lacks a good faith basis for alleging. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) 

provides that an attorney who files a pleading thereby “certifies that to the best of [his] 

knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the 

circumstances: . . . (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically 

so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for 

further investigation or discovery.” Disregard of this rule may result in sanctions. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 11(c). If Defendants believe Plaintiff’s counsel has violated his ethical 

obligations, they may file a motion for sanctions, as long as they first comply with the 

Case 2:15-cv-00494-NVW Document 43 Filed 05/15/15 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

“safe harbor” provision of Rule 11(c)(2). But that motion is not currently before the 

court. 

 Defendants also move to strike allegations that they employ undocumented 

workers and refuse to participate in the E-Verify system. Plaintiff has brought claims 

relating only to Popo’s treatment of her personally; she does not seek relief on any cause 

of action even remotely connected to immigration law. Nevertheless, Plaintiff contends 

the allegations in paragraph 38 are relevant because they “show[] a pattern of violating 

federal law and mistreatment of employees” as well as Defendants’ propensity to “take 

illegal actions in the face of perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law.” (Doc. 

23 at 5-6.) Even assuming this allegation could be proved through admissible evidence, 

see Fed. R. Evid. 404, the purpose for which Plaintiff hopes to offer it is wildly 

overbroad. The fact that a party may have violated one law in the past simply does not 

bear on the likelihood that he has violated an entirely different law. Defendants’ alleged 

hiring of undocumented workers is unconnected to Popo’s alleged harassment of 

Plaintiff. In the language of Rule 12(f), paragraph 38 is “immaterial” and “impertinent” 

and must therefore be stricken from the Complaint. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of 

Plaintiff Amy Patterson’s Complaint (Doc. 12) is granted to the extent that paragraph 38 

is stricken from the Complaint. The Motion is otherwise denied. 

 Dated this 15th day of May, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00494-NVW Document 43 Filed 05/15/15 Page 6 of 6