Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00227/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00227-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

-1- 19cv227-MMA (BGS)

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 

EVA MARIE BAILEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; U.S. 

BANK, N.A., In Its Capacity as Trustee for the Holders of Mastr Asset Backed 

Securities Trust 2005-WMCI, Mortgage 

Pass-Through Certificates, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 19cv227-MMA (BGS)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS 

OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

[Doc. No. 7]

Plaintiff Eva Marie Bailey (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendants 

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and U.S. Bank, N.A., in its capacity as trustee for the 

holders of Mastr Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-WMCI, Mortgage Pass-Through 

Certificates (collectively, “Defendants”) on January 31, 2019. See Doc. No. 1 

(hereinafter “Compl.”). Plaintiff alleges claims for: (1) violations of the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act, 12 C.F.R. § 1026, et seq.; (2) violations of the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.; (3) violations of the Homeowner’s 

Bill of Rights Act, Assembly Bill No. 278, Chapter 86, 2011-2012, Cal. Civ. Code § 

2920, et seq.; (4) breach of contract, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3300-02 and 3353-60; and (5) 

negligence, Cal. Civ. Code § 1714. See id. 

Case 3:19-cv-00227-MMA-BGS Document 16 Filed 07/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
 -2- 19cv227-MMA (BGS)

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

On February 25, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). See Doc. No. 7. 

Specifically, Defendants move to strike allegations regarding punitive damages, claiming 

Plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts indicating fraud, malice, or oppression. See 

Doc. No. 7-1 at 4.1

On March 19, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay this action 

until June 2019. See Doc. No. 10. The Court extended the briefing schedule on 

Defendants’ motion and indicated that Plaintiff could file an opposition to Defendants’ 

motion on or before June 14, 2019. See id. at 10. In May, the Court reiterated that 

Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to Defendants’ motion remained unchanged. See Doc. No. 

14 at 4. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion. 

Here, while Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is 

unopposed, “[m]otions to strike on the grounds of insufficiency, immateriality, 

irrelevancy, and redundancy are not favored . . . and will usually be denied unless the 

allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of 

the parties.” Bianchi v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 120 F. Supp. 2d 837, 841 (N.D. 

Cal. 2000) (emphasis added). Defendants’ challenges to Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive 

damages are premised on insufficiency grounds. See Doc. No. 7-1 at 4 (“Plaintiff has 

failed to plead any facts that Defendants harbored any ill will or malice toward Plaintiff 

or acted with any intention whatsoever.”) (emphasis added). Defendants, however, 

advance no arguments that Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages “ha[s] no possible 

relation to the controversy” nor do Defendants identify any prejudice they will suffer as a 

                                               

1

 Defendants cite to Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 in support of their argument that under California 

law, a plaintiff may only recover punitive damages where the defendant acts with malice, oppression, or 

fraud. See Doc. No. 7-1 at 3. However, “California’s heightened pleading standard irreconcilably 

conflicts with Rules 8 and 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” and does not apply in federal court. 

Rees v. PNC Bank, N.A., 308 F.R.D. 266, 273 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Some courts have found that under 

federal pleading standards, a plaintiff can simply recite a short and plain prayer for punitive damages. 

See, e.g., Alejandro v. ST Micro Elecs., Inc., 129 F. Supp. 3d 898, 817-18 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 

Case 3:19-cv-00227-MMA-BGS Document 16 Filed 07/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
 -3- 19cv227-MMA (BGS)

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

result if Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is not stricken from the Complaint. 

Bianchi, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 841. 

Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike 

Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages. See Holmes v. Elec. Document Processing, Inc., 

966 F. Supp. 2d 925, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (noting the decision to “grant a motion to 

strike lies within the sound discretion of the district court.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2019

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-00227-MMA-BGS Document 16 Filed 07/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3