Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01297/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01297-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

Case No.: 5:18-cv-01297-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

1

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

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEONARD TOM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:18-cv-01297-EJD 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No. 16

Plaintiff Scott Johnson (“Plaintiff”) initiated the instant action against Defendants Leonard 

Tom; Pearl Lai Tom; Mai Nguyen Tran; and Does 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”) on February 

28, 2018 alleging various violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-

89 (“ADA”) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq. 

(“Unruh Act”). Dkt. No. 1. Defendant Mai Nguyen Tran (“Tran”) appeared pro se and filed an 

Answer on May 3, 2018. Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff now moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(f) to strike Tran’s Answer in its entirety. Dkt. No. 16.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “the Court may strike from a pleading 

an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Here, 

Plaintiff contends that the Court should strike Tran’s Answer because it does not comply with 

Section II(A) of Document Pro Se 3, which requires a pro se Defendant to 

[o]n a separate page or pages, write a short and plain statement of 

the answer to the allegations in the complaint. Number the 

paragraphs. The answer should correspond to each paragraph in the 

complaint, with paragraph I of the answer corresponding to 

paragraph 1 of the complaint, etc. For each paragraph in the 

Case 5:18-cv-01297-EJD Document 17 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 5:18-cv-01297-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complaint, state whether: the defendant admits the allegations in that 

paragraph; denies the allegations; lacks sufficient knowledge to 

admit or deny the allegations; or admits certain allegations but 

denies, or lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny, the rest. 

Dkt. No. 14 at 2.

Here, Tran submitted a separate page stating the following:

A proper outside handicap parking area, entry ramp which does not 

include a platform, and round door knobs are listed.

Leonard and Pearl Tom must decide on these matters. I may not and 

so, do not have a right to decide what they would do with their 

property with respect to modification to it.

I do not own any part of the land in question. Leonard and Pearl 

Tom are presently the owners of the property where I and others rent 

spaces from her.

I lack the ability to respond to the allegations. I do not have the right 

to admit or deny the allegations.

Leonard and Pearl Tom should have and will have an only and final

say in matters concerning disputing any proposed changes or 

modifying her property relative to the difficulties found by Mr. 

Johnson at the outside of her property. I lack sufficient knowledge to 

admit or deny the allegations.

Dkt. No. 14 at 1.

A court must construe the filings of a pro se litigant liberally and afford him any benefit of 

the doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, although Tran did not 

respond to Plaintiff’s allegations paragraph-by-paragraph, it appears that he read the allegations 

and responded to them in substance. For example, he mentions the handicap parking area, the

entry ramp, and the door knobs, all of which Plaintiff cites as bases of his claims. See Complaint 

¶¶ 23-36, 58-65, 70. Tran also responds to Plaintiff’s allegations regarding property ownership. 

See Complaint ¶¶ 10-17. Construed liberally, he has satisfied the requirements of Section II(A). 

Accordingly, the Court will not strike his answer under Rule 12(f). Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-01297-EJD Document 17 Filed 08/06/18 Page 2 of 2