Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04839/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04839-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

BV RIGHTS, ANSTALT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABAXIS, INC., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-04-04839 SC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO STRIKE

PORTIONS OF

COUNTERCLAIM 

Plaintiff BV Rights, Anstalt's ("Plaintiff" or "BV Rights")

now moves this Court to strike portions of Defendant Abaxis,

Inc.'s ("Defendant" or "Abaxis") Counterclaim. Plaintiff brings

its Motion pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The underlying dispute centers on Plaintiff's

allegation that Defendant has infringed upon certain patent rights

to a blood sample analyzing device. 

Under Rule 12(f), "the court may order stricken from any

pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,

impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 

"[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." 

Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robbins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir.

Case 3:04-cv-04839-SC Document 55 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1983). However, "motions to strike should not be granted unless

it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible

bearing on the subject matter of the litigation." Colaprico v.

Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991).

The first portion of the counterclaim that Plaintiff moves to

strike is paragraph 49, in which Defendant alleges that Plaintiff

initiated the underlying litigation to prevent Defendant from

lawfully competing with Plaintiff. Counterclaim at 8. Plaintiff

asserts that this paragraph makes allegations which are

"premature" and "barred by the litigation privilege." Motion at

5. Perhaps Plaintiff may be able to show at a later stage that

California's "litigation privilege," Cal. Civ. Code Section 47,

bars this claim, but the Court declines the invitation to strike

paragraph 49 at this point in time. A motion to strike "is

neither an authorized nor a proper way to procure the dismissal of

all or a part of a complaint, or a counterclaim." 5C Charles Alan

Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1380

(3d ed. 2004). Rather, as described above, a motion to strike

should be aimed at spurious allegations. Here, while Plaintiff

seeks only to strike a portion of Defendant's Fourth Counterclaim,

the Court holds that Plaintiff has not shown that paragraph 49 has

"no possible bearing" on the litigation. Plaintiff, if it so

chooses, should move for dismissal or summary judgment of the

counterclaim when the record has been developed more deeply.

The second portion of the counterclaim that Plaintiff moves

to strike is the references to the "public" which Defendant has

made in paragraphs 51 and 52. Motion at 6. Specifically,

Case 3:04-cv-04839-SC Document 55 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff moves to strike the words "the general public as well as

for" and "and the public" from paragraphs 51 and 52, respectively,

of the Counterclaim. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed

to meet the higher pleading standards, approved by the voters last

November through Proposition 64, necessary to pursue a

representative action under California's Unfair Competition Law. 

Motion at 6. The Court agrees. See Frey v. Trans Union Corp.,

127 Cal. App. 4th 986, 994 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005); Thornton v.

Career Training Ctr., 128 Cal. App. 4th 116, 123-24 (Cal. Ct. App.

April 4, 2005). Furthermore, in its Opposition to the Motion,

Defendant did not challenge Plaintiff's efforts to strike these

references. Therefore, the Court grants the Motion with respect

to these portions of the Counterclaim.

The third portion of the Counterclaim that Plaintiff moves to

strike is Defendant's request for "reasonable attorneys' fees." 

Motion at 2. "In the United States, parties are ordinarily

required to bear their own attorney's fees—the prevailing party is

not entitled to collect from the loser. Under this 'American

Rule,' we follow a general practice of not awarding fees to a

prevailing party absent explicit statutory authority." Buckhannon

Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S.

598, 602 (2001) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

Here, Defendant's Counterclaim does not assert any explicit

statutory basis for the request. Counterclaim at 9. In its

Opposition to the instant Motion, Defendant asserts that should it

prevail in the underlying matter, it would be entitled to

attorneys' fees. Opposition at 6-7. This may be true. However,

Case 3:04-cv-04839-SC Document 55 Filed 05/10/05 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

whether or not Defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees for a

successful defense against Plaintiff's causes of action has no

bearing on whether Defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees if it

prevails on its counterclaims. Furthermore, while Defendant's

Opposition can be read to imply that section 3426.4 of the

California Civil Code may provide a basis for attorneys' fees for

Defendant's Unfair Competition counterclaim, it is not the role of

this Court to carefully parse Defendant's Opposition to find some

justification for the attorneys' fee request. Id. at 7. Rather,

this Court must look to the Counterclaim itself to determine on

what basis Defendant seeks attorneys' fees for its counterclaims. 

The Court finds the counterclaim to be lacking such a basis. It

is true that "[u]nder the liberal system of 'notice pleading' ...

all the Rules require is a 'short and plain statement of the

claim' that will give the defendant fair notice ...." Lee v. City

of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal

citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Here, however, the

Counterclaim is insufficient to give Plaintiff fair notice of the

basis on which Defendant seeks attorneys' fees. Therefore, the

Court grants the Motion to Strike with respect to the prayer for

attorneys' fees.

For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to

Strike Portions of Defendant's Counterclaim with respect to

paragraph 49. The Court GRANTS the Motion with respect to the

phrases "the general public as well as for" and "and the public"

in paragraphs 51 and 52 of the Counterclaim. The Court also

GRANTS the Motion with respect to the prayer for attorney's fees. 

Case 3:04-cv-04839-SC Document 55 Filed 05/10/05 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Furthermore, should it so choose, the Court grants Defendant 30

days from the date of this Order to amend its Counterclaim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10 , 2005

 /s/ Samuel Conti 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04839-SC Document 55 Filed 05/10/05 Page 5 of 5