Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01525/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01525-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332tl Diversity-Torts to Land

---

1 

3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GREENFIELD MHP ASSOCIATES, 

L.P.; STARLIGHT MHP, LLC; DAVIS 

GROUP EXCHANGE, LLC; VILLA 

CAJON MHC, L.P., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

AMETEK, INC; SENIOR 

OPERATIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 

through 100, inclusive, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS 

(1) ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO STRIKE [ECF No. 184]; and 

(2) AMENDED TRIAL 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

 Before the Court is Defendant Ametek, Inc.’s motion to strike portions of the 

Plaintiffs’ operative complaint. (ECF No. 184.) For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court GRANTS the motion. 

I. Background 

 On April 12, 2018, the Court granted in part Ametek’s motion for summary 

judgment after concluding that Plaintiffs could not obtain the damages they request in 

this case. (ECF No. 180.) The Court noted that declaratory and/or injunctive relief may 

be available in this case, and therefore it permitted Plaintiffs to file an amended 

Case 3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS Document 195 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS 

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

complaint that adds requests for declaratory and/or injunctive relief. (Id. at 36–37.1

) 

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”). (ECF No. 182.) Ametek 

now moves to strike certain portions of the SAC. (ECF No. 184.) 

II. Legal Standard 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that, upon a motion, “[t]he court 

may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, 

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” “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, 943 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th 

Cir. 1993)).

III. Discussion 

A. Jury Trial Demand 

 First, Ametek moves to strike Plaintiffs’ jury trial demand. (ECF No. 184-1 at 6–

9.) In their response, Plaintiffs indicate that they “do not oppose Ametek’s motion to 

strike the jury demand.” (ECF No. 192 at 3.) The jury trial demand is therefore stricken 

from the SAC. 

B. Previously Dismissed Causes of Action 

 Ametek asks the Court to strike the causes of action in the SAC that the Court 

previously dismissed in its November 18, 2015 ruling. (See ECF No. 34.) Again, 

Plaintiffs “do not oppose striking the previously dismissed causes of action at this 

juncture.” (ECF No. 192 at 3.) Plaintiffs’ claims that have been previously dismissed are 

hereby stricken from the SAC. 

C. Request for Declaratory Relief 

 In its summary judgment ruling, the Court explained that the envisioned 

                                               

1

 Page citations in this order refer to the pagination provided by the CM/ECF system. 

Case 3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS Document 195 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS 

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

declaratory judgment in this case would find Ametek liable for the contamination on 

Plaintiffs’ properties. (See ECF No. 180 at 33.) In response, Plaintiffs added to their 

complaint a request for a declaration from the Court stating that (1) “Ametek is 

responsible for the contamination that exists on Plaintiffs’ properties,” (2) “Ametek is 

liable to Plaintiffs for the contamination that exists on Plaintiffs’ properties,” and 

(3) “Ametek is responsible for reimbursing Plaintiffs for the full amount of any and all 

past, present and future costs that Plaintiffs have incurred or will incur to remediate 

and/or mitigate the contamination that Ametek has caused to exist on Plaintiffs’ 

properties.” (FAC at 37, 39.) Ametek moves to strike the third prong of Plaintiffs’ 

request for declaratory relief because it “goes beyond the scope of the Court’s order on 

the [motion for summary judgment] and raises subject matter jurisdiction concerns.” 

(ECF No. 184-1 at 10.) The Court agrees on the first ground, and therefore need not 

address the second ground. 

In its summary judgment ruling, the Court explained that a declaratory judgment in 

this case would simply find “Ametek liable for the contamination of Plaintiffs’ property,” 

and explained that Plaintiffs could “use that judgment to bring successive actions against 

Ametek for recoupment of costs Plaintiffs incur as they remediate their own properties.” 

(ECF No. 180 at 33.) The Court permitted Plaintiffs to amend their complaint only so as 

to add a request for such a declaratory judgment. The first two prongs of the request for 

declaratory relief—which seek a declaration that Ametek is “responsible for” the 

contamination and “liable to” Plaintiffs as a result—satisfy the amendment that was 

permitted by the Court. To the extent that the third prong goes beyond that permission, 

such amendment was not permitted and should be stricken. See, e.g., Hiramanek v. 

Clark, No. C-13-0228 EMC, 2013 WL 4734025, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2013). To the 

extent that the third prong repeats what is requested in the first two prongs, the third 

prong is “redundant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). As a result, the Court finds it appropriate to 

strike the third prong of Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief. 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS Document 195 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS 

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

IV. Conclusion 

 For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS the motion to strike. In light 

of the Court’s striking Plaintiffs’ jury trial demand, the trial set for August 6, 2018, will 

be a bench trial. 

The Court’s earlier scheduling order (ECF No. 189) is VACATED. On or before 

July 23, 2018, the parties shall submit directly to chambers a tabbed trial notebook 

containing a table of contents and hard copies of the following documents, all of which 

should also be filed using the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing 

(CM/ECF) system: 

1. The operative pleading, complaint, as well as any cross complaint, or third party 

complaint, and operative answers; 

2. Separate trial briefs, not to exceed twenty pages in length; 

3. Any stipulations or agreements; 

4. A joint witness list in table format, including columns designated for the party that 

will be calling the witness, time estimates for direct and cross-examination, and a 

brief description of each witness’s testimony; 

5. A joint list of deposition designations, if any; 

6. A joint exhibit list in table format, including columns designated for exhibit 

numbers, a description of the exhibits, whether the admissibility of an exhibit is 

disputed, the date an exhibit is marked, and the date the exhibit is admitted; and 

7. Separate proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

The parties shall also email a copy of these documents in Word format to 

efile_curiel@casd.uscourts.gov. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 22, 2018 

Case 3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS Document 195 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4