Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04520/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04520-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Plaintiff
Adam Chung-Shiaing Wang
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAM CHUNG-SHIAING WANG, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-04-4520 SC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANT'S

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Plaintiff United States of America ("the Government") filed

this action to revoke the naturalization of Defendant Adam ChungShiaing Wang ("Defendant"). On December 29, 2004, Defendant filed

his Answer, which included three affirmative defenses. The

Government has now moved to strike Defendant's affirmative

defenses pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

First, the Court will briefly review the facts of the

underlying matter. Defendant became a naturalized citizen of the

United States on May 24, 1995. Complaint at 4. During his

application process, Defendant answered "No" to a written question

regarding whether he had ever been "arrested, cited, charged,

indicted, convicted, fined, or imprisoned" for a crime, excluding

traffic violations. Id. at 2. He orally informed an investigator

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 19 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

that he had been fined for theft from a video store. Id. at 3. 

In fact, Defendant was convicted of grand theft in 1992 and

sentenced to one year probation and a $250 fine. Id. at 4. In

addition, Defendant was arrested for petty theft in 1994 for

stealing $300 from his employer and sentenced to 10 days in jail,

served over 10 consecutive Sundays, and three years probation. 

Id. Defendant alleges that his "rap sheet" was in the possession

of the Government during his naturalization proceeding, but the

Government failed to review it. Opposition at 2.

Turning to the Motion now before the Court, under Rule 12(f),

"the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient

defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). "[T]he 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." Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robbins

Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). However, "motions to

strike should not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to

be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter

of the litigation." Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F.

Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991).

As a preliminary matter, Defendant opposes the Motion on the

grounds that it is untimely. With respect to the timing of a Rule

12(f) motion, the rule states, "Upon motion made by a party before

responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is

permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party within 20

days after service of the pleading upon the party or upon the

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 19 Filed 06/20/05 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

court's own initiative at any time ..." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 

Defendant asserts that because the Government filed the instant

Motion on April 19, 2005, which is more than 20 days after

Defendant filed his Answer on December 29, 2004, the Motion should

be denied. The Court agrees that the Government has filed the

Motion late. However, courts in other jurisdictions have held

that "a party has the right to challenge the legal sufficiency of

a defense at any time" and therefore a court can consider the

merits of an untimely motion to strike. Oregon Laborers-Employers

Trust Funds v. Pacific Fence & Wire Co., 726 F. Supp. 786, 788 (D.

Or. 1989). See also Estee Lauder, Inc. v. Fragrance Counter,

Inc., 189 F.R.D. 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("Plaintiffs' delay,

however, presents no bar to considering the motion on its merits. 

Rule 12(f) clearly permits a Court on its own initiative, at any

time, to strike .... In effect, the Court's discretion renders the

twenty (20) day rule essentially unimportant." (internal citations

and quotations omitted)). Thus, the Court will consider the

merits of the instant Motion. 

Defendant raises three affirmative defenses in his Answer. 

First, Defendant asserts, "Plaintiff waived any and all claims

that he may or may not have had by allowing nine years to lapse

before conducting a background check on defendant." Answer at 4. 

Essentially, this assertion puts forth a statute of limitations

defense. Section 1451, which controls this denaturalization

proceeding, makes no mention of any statute of limitations. 8

U.S.C. § 1451. Furthermore, case law demonstrates conclusively

that the Government may institute a denaturalization proceeding at

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 19 Filed 06/20/05 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Defendant's Answer appears to mix up the labels "Plaintiff"

and "Defendant" in his Second Affirmative Defense. Answer at 4.

4

any time regardless of how many years have passed since

citizenship was granted to a defendant. Fedorenko v. United

States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981) (upholding revocation of citizenship

of a World War II concentration camp guard seven years after his

naturalization); United States v. Szehinskyj, 277 F.3d 331 (3d

Cir. 2002) (upholding revocation of citizenship of a World War II

concentration camp guard four decades after his naturalization). 

Even though Defendant's crimes may not rise to the level of those

in Fedorenko or Szehinsky, this Court has no authority to infer a

statute of limitations under its equitable powers because

"Congress alone has the constitutional authority to prescribe

rules for naturalization." Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 506. Based on

this case law, this Court holds that there is no statute of

limitations applicable to the underlying proceeding. Therefore,

the Court grants the Motion with respect to the first affirmative

defense.

Second, Defendant asserts that the Government must be

estopped from bringing this claim against Defendant, stating, "The

government had actual or constructive knowledge of plaintiff's

alleged criminal background, yet proceeded to process

[Defendant's]1

 citizenship application." Answer at 4. The

Government asserts that "equitable defenses such as laches, waiver

and estoppel against the government are disfavored and are rarely

successful." It is true that this Court's equitable powers are

extremely limited, if not nonexistent, in the area of

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 19 Filed 06/20/05 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

naturalization. See Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 518 ("An alien who

seeks political rights as a member of this Nation can rightfully

obtain them only upon the terms and conditions specified by

Congress. Courts are without authority to sanction changes or

modifications; their duty is rigidly to enforce the legislative

will in respect of a matter so vital to the public welfare."). 

However, a § 1451 denaturalization process strips a Defendant of

American citizenship when naturalization was "illegally procured"

or when the defendant procured naturalization "by concealment of a

material fact or by willful misrepresentation." 8 U.S.C. § 1451. 

Defendant's second affirmative defense suggests that Defendant did

not conceal his criminal record. Whether or not Defendant

provided information on his criminal history during his

naturalization proceeding is highly relevant. As stated above,

"motions to strike should not be granted unless it is clear that

the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the

subject matter of the litigation." Colaprico, 758 F. Supp. at

1339. Here, it is possible, perhaps even probable, that

Defendant's second affirmative defense has a bearing on the

underlying litigation. Therefore, the Court denies the Motion

with respect to the second affirmative defense.

Third, Defendant asserts, "As a third affirmative defense,

defendant asserts that plaintiff's claim must be barred by the

doctrine of latches [sic]. Plaintiff's [sic] unreasonably delayed

brining [sic] action against defendant for nine years. Because of

this unreasonably [sic] delay, defendant's ability to mount an

effective defense has been impaired." Answer at 4. However, the

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 19 Filed 06/20/05 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

Supreme Court has expressly rejected a laches defense in a

denaturalization proceeding. Costello v. United States, 365 U.S.

265, 283-84 (1961) ("Depriving him of his fraudulently acquired

privilege, even after the lapse of many years, is not so

unreasonable as to constitute a denial of due process."). 

Therefore, the Court grants the Motion with respect to the third

affirmative defense.

 The Court emphasizes to both parties that this Order is

concerned solely with the propriety of Defendant's affirmative

defenses and has no bearing on the merits of the underlying

proceeding. Looking forward, "the Government carries a heavy

burden of proof in a proceeding to divest a naturalized citizen of

his citizenship." Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 505 (internal citations

and quotations omitted). "The evidence justifying revocation of

citizenship must be clear, unequivocal, and convincing and not

leave the issue in doubt." Id. (internal citations and quotations

omitted). "At the same time ... there must be strict compliance

with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the

acquisition of citizenship. Failure to comply with any of these

conditions renders the certificate of citizenship 'illegally

procured,' and naturalization that is unlawfully procured can be

set aside." Id. at 506.

At this time, the Court has considered only Plaintiff's

Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses. For the

///

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 19 Filed 06/20/05 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

reasons states above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Strike with

respect to the first and third affirmative defenses but DENIES the

Motion with respect to the second affirmative defense.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20 , 2005

 /s/ Samuel Conti 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 19 Filed 06/20/05 Page 7 of 7