Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02570/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02570-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

---

1

18-cv-2570-AJB-KSC

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

Collette Stark,

Plaintiff,

v.

Simon Poonka,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-2570-AJB-KSC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE 

ANSWER

(Doc. No. 19)

Before the Court is Plaintiff Collette Starks’ motion for a more definite statement. 

(Doc. No. 19.) The remaining active Defendant, Simon Poonka, did not oppose the motion. 

Although titled as a motion for a more definite answer, Plaintiff also requests certain parts 

of Defendant’s answer be stricken. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 

IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this complaint for alleged violations of the TCPA and CIPA for 

illegal telemarketing calls by Defendants. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 2.) She alleges that Defendant 

businesses Eco Home Solutions, Poonka Enterprises, Inc., and Project Eco called her at 

least nine times using an automated telephone dialing system. (Id. ¶ 72.) 

Case 3:18-cv-02570-AJB-KSC Document 32 Filed 05/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-cv-2570-AJB-KSC

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

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(B)(1)(B) states that a party must “admit or deny 

the allegations against it by an opposing party.” Rule 8(b)(3) states “[a] party that intends 

in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional

grounds—may do so by a general denial.”

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.” “[T]he function of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid the waste of time and money 

spent on litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues before trial . . . .” 

Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Sidney–Vinstein v. 

A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983)), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517

(1994). Grounds for a motion to strike must be readily apparent from the face of the 

pleadings or from materials that may be judicially noticed. Wailua Assocs. v. Aetna Cas. 

& Sur. Co., 183 F.R.D. 550, 554 (D. Haw. 1998). A matter will not be stricken from a 

pleading unless it is clear that it can have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the 

litigation. Id.; see also Empire Tractor Corp. v. Time, Inc., 10 F.R.D. 121, 122 (E.D. Pa. 

1950) (“[A]nd if there is any doubt as to whether under any contingency the matter [sought 

to be stricken] may [at some time] raise an issue, the motion should be denied.” (citations 

omitted)). Motions to strike are also disfavored in the absence of prejudice. Horowitz v. 

Sulla, No. 13-00500 HG-BMK, 2014 WL 1048798, at *10 (D. Haw. Mar. 14, 2014) (citing 

Wailua Assocs., 183 F.R.D. at 553).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that certain parts of Defendant’s answer should be stricken, and that 

Defendant be ordered to admit or deny each paragraph of her complaint. Defendant, also 

appearing pro se, styles his answer as a general denial of Plaintiff’s allegations and uses a 

story format, rather than the traditional admit/deny style sanctioned by attorneys. As an 

initial matter, just as Plaintiff reminds the Court that her motion is to be construed liberally 

as a pro se plaintiff, Defendant enjoys the same liberal construction of his complaint.

Case 3:18-cv-02570-AJB-KSC Document 32 Filed 05/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-cv-2570-AJB-KSC

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

A. Motion to Strike

First, Plaintiff asserts that page 1, lines 37–38 should be stricken as “scandalous, 

immaterial[,] and impertinent.” (Doc. No. 19-1 at 3.) Those lines state: “Project Eco 

believes this to be a completely frivolous complaint/lawsuit. Also[,] Project 38 Eco 

believes this is an attempt to shakedown Project Eco for money as will be explained later.” 

(Doc. No. 16 at 2.) Immaterial matters are those that “have no essential or important 

relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded,” and impertinent matters 

are “statements that do not pertain and are not necessary to the issues in question.” Fantasy, 

984 F.2d at 1527. “Allegations may be stricken as scandalous if the matter bears no possible 

relation to the controversy” or when it may cause “prejudice” to the objecting party. Talbot 

v. Robert Matthews Distrib., Co., 961 F.2d 654, 664–65 (7th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added) 

(citations omitted). The Court finds the first part of the response represents Defendant’s 

general denial, but that the second sentence referring to the attempted “shakedown” is 

scandalous. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS striking it.

Next, Plaintiff requests page 3, line 16 through pages 4 and 5 be stricken as nonresponsive and scandalous. (Doc. No. 19-1 at 3.) The pages refer to an email conversation 

Defendant had with Plaintiff and are essentially copied from the emails themselves. 

(Doc. No. 16 at 3–5.) Defendant states the “[f]ollowing is the only way I have 

communicated with COLLETTE STARKS in this whole ordeal via email.” (Id. at 3.) 

Although the information is normally not included in an answer but is more often found in 

a motion to dismiss, the Court finds the information concerns Defendant’s general denial 

of the allegations and his affirmative defenses. Moreover, the Court finds that there is no 

harm or prejudice as to the attachments and Defendant’s summary of the emails because it 

is information that is likely to be entered into evidence at some point. Thus, the Court 

DENIES striking it.

B. Motion for a More Definite Answer

Plaintiff also requests the Court order Defendant to “admit or deny each paragraph 

of the Complaint.” (Doc. No. 19-1 at 3.) However, Defendant does not need to do that 

Case 3:18-cv-02570-AJB-KSC Document 32 Filed 05/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-cv-2570-AJB-KSC

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

because the complaint is unverified and if he elects to submit a general denial. Construing 

his answer liberally, the Court determines Defendant’s intent was to generally deny all 

Plaintiff’s allegations. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a more 

definite answer.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the reasoning herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN 

PART Plaintiff’s motion. The Court strikes Defendant’s sentence regarding a shakedown 

and determines that no new answer need be filed. The case is ready for an early neutral 

evaluation and other case management. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 29, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02570-AJB-KSC Document 32 Filed 05/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4