Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

Order Denying Motion To Strike

Case No.: 13-CV-00228-RMW 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

ADIL K HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

L MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00228-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STRIKE AMENDED ANSWER OF 

BETH MILLER

Re: Dkt. No. 180

Plaintiffs move to strike the amended answer of defendant Beth Miller. Dkt. No. 180 

(Motion); Dkt. No. 177 (Answer).1 Plaintiffs’ claim against Ms. Miller is a claim for “denial of 

access to the restroom based upon race” in Ms. Miller’s individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. See Dkt. No. 153 (Order on Motion to Dismiss) at 1-2. The answer includes nine 

affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs argue that the answer does not meet the Twombly and Iqbal2

standard applied to affirmative defenses. The court does not find this persuasive. The first 

through fourth affirmative defenses are essentially immunity defenses. These defenses are 

appropriate and sufficiently pled when read in light of the facts alleged in the complaint and the 

identity of Ms. Miller, a state employee. The fifth through seventh affirmative defenses 

adequately explain the basis for Ms. Miller’s defenses (i.e., failure to mitigate, plaintiffs at fault, 

 

1

Plaintiffs belief that Ms. Miller is in default is noted and is not persuasive. 

2

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 191 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 2
Order Denying Motion To Strike

Case No.: 13-CV-00228-RMW 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

and lack of standing to seek an injunction) against plaintiffs’ prayer for relief. The eighth (statute 

of limitations) and ninth (28 U.S.C. § 1654) affirmative defenses are sufficiently pled. See Dkt. 

No. 163 (Order granting in part motion to strike answer of Superior Court) at 4. Accordingly, 

plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 191 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 2