Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04743/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04743-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

Case No.: 14-CV-04743-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FARIBA RAHIMIAN MARNANI,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEZZETTI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 

a California corporation; JOSE MEZZETTI 

individually and in his official capacity; 

HOLMES & USOZ LLP, a California 

limited liability partnership; and LESLIE 

HOLMES, individually and in her official 

capacity,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-CV-04743-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STRIKE

On January 9, 2015, Defendants filed three separate Answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike all of the affirmative 

defenses contained in each of Defendants’ Answers. ECF No. 22. According to the text 

accompanying electronic docket number 22, Defendants’ Oppositions to Plaintiff’s motion were 

due by February 13, 2015. Defendants filed none.

On February 24, 2015—eleven days after Defendants’ Oppositions were due—Plaintiff 

Case 5:14-cv-04743-LHK Document 25 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 14-CV-04743-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Northern District of California

filed a Statement of No Opposition, indicating that “Plaintiff’s counsel has not been served with 

any opposition to the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses Contained in Defendants’ Answers 

(Doc. 22) filed herein on January 30, 2015” and requesting “that the Court grant [Plaintiff’s]

Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses Contained in Defendants’ Answers immediately and 

without a hearing.” ECF No. 24. To date, Defendants have not filed any Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Strike.

“A court must consider the following five factors before striking a pleading or declaring 

default: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the other party; (4) the public policy favoring the 

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Hester v. 

Vision Airlines, Inc., 687 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Factors one, two, three, and five all favor granting Plaintiff’s motion. The public’s interest in the 

expeditious resolution of cases and the Court’s need to manage its docket are best served by 

granting Plaintiff’s unopposed motion now, rather than waiting until after the hearing date set for 

May 21, 2015—three months from today. Further, the risk of prejudice to Defendants is low 

because the Court will allow Defendants leave to file amended Answers.

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Strike and, 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), VACATES the motion hearing set for May 21, 2015, at 1:30 

p.m. See Bd. of Trs. of Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund for N. Cal. v. Kudsk Const., Inc., 

No. C 12-165 CW, 2012 WL 3010981, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2012) (granting the plaintiffs’

unopposed motion to strike the defendants’ answer). Defendants may file amended Answers 

within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. See Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit PlanNonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1176 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (granting motion to strike 

affirmative defenses but allowing leave for the defendant to file an amended answer).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:14-cv-04743-LHK Document 25 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 14-CV-04743-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Northern District of California

Dated: February 24, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04743-LHK Document 25 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 3