Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00110/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00110-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jon Lewis
Plaintiff
Synchrony Bank
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SYNCHRONY BANK,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-0110-DC-JDP (PS)

ORDER

Pending before the court are plaintiff’s two motions to strike, defendant’s motion to set 

aside plaintiff’s request for default, and plaintiff’s motion “to show authority.” For the reasons

stated below, each is denied. Defendant is directed to file a response to plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint by January 17, 2025. 

Motions to Strike

Under Rule 12(f), the court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any 

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). A Rule 12(f) 

motion seeks to avoid unnecessary expenditures of time and money by dispensing with spurious

issues prior to trial. Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other 

grounds, 510 U.S. 517,

Plaintiff has filed two motions to strike. The first seeks to strike defendant’s response to 

Case 2:24-cv-00110-DC-JDP Document 44 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 3
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

plaintiff’s objections to the July 22, 2024 findings and recommendations. ECF No. 25. The 

second seeks to strike defendant’s motion to set aside plaintiff’s request for entry of default. ECF 

No. 35. Neither motion is meritorious. As an initial matter, plaintiff has failed to identify how 

either of defendant’s pleadings are redundant, immaterial, or scandalous. Plaintiff argues that 

defendant engaged in “fraud upon the court” because, in its response to his objections, it failed 

“to recognize the federal implications of the financial practices in question, specially the use and 

recognition of negotiable instruments under the California Commercial Code (Comm. Code) and 

related federal laws.” ECF No. 25 at 2. However, these arguments merely rehash plaintiff’s

opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. And the court has already considered these 

arguments and rejected them. See ECF No. 19. As for plaintiff’s second motion to strike, the 

Clerk of Court declined to enter default, see ECF No. 43, and so plaintiff’s motion to strike 

defendant’s motion—which, as explained below, is moot—is also denied as moot. 

Motion to Set Aside Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default

On August 12, 2024, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and granted him thirty days 

to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 24. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on 

September 9, 2024, and a second amended complaint on September 16, 2024. ECF Nos. 26 & 28. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, defendant’s responsive pleading to the second 

amended complaint was due twenty-one days later, on October 7, 2024. On October 8, 2024, 

plaintiff filed a request for entry of default for defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading. 

ECF No. 30. Two days later, defendant filed a motion to set aside plaintiff’s request for entry of 

default. Since the Clerk of Court declined to enter default, see ECF No. 43, defendant’s motion is 

denied as moot. 

Motion to Show Authority

Plaintiff has filed a motion asking this court to compel defendant’s attorney to “produce 

documentary evidence establishing his authorization to represent Synchrony Bank in this case, 

per Calif. Code of Civil Procedure § 283(l).” ECF No. 39 at 1. The purported federal authority 

plaintiff cites support of such action is inapplicable. This motion is denied. 

Case 2:24-cv-00110-DC-JDP Document 44 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to strike, ECF No. 25, is denied.

2. Defendant’s motion to set aside plaintiff’s request for default, ECF No. 31, and 

plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s motion to set aside, ECF No. 35, are both denied as moot.

3. Plaintiff’s motion to show authority, ECF No. 39, is denied. 

4. Defendant is directed to file a response to plaintiff’s second amended complaint by 

January 17, 2025. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00110-DC-JDP Document 44 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 3