Opinion ID: 1210694
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: hobbs's appeal

Text: Finally, Hobbs appeals the district court's grant of the Forest Service's motion to strike his answer to SREP's amended complaint and to assert his own counterclaims. The district court determined that Hobbs's arguments were non-mandatory cross-claims against the Forest Service, and were contrary to the district court's earlier order restricting Hobbs's intervention to the remedial phase of the litigation. We conclude that the district court's decision to strike Hobbs's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) did not constitute an abuse of discretion. See Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir.2000). Although the district court granted Hobbs intervention only as to the remedial phase of the litigation, his answer sought to raise issues related to the merits of the litigation. Hobbs's affirmative defenses and counterclaims were either defenses that the Forest Service could have raised in response to SREP's suit, or attempts to state independent claims against the Forest Service. These claims exceeded the bounds of the limited intervention granted to Hobbs. The district court's ruling striking Hobbs's answer was well within the court's discretion and we therefore affirm the court's ruling on this issue. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court in SREP's action against the Forest Service is AFFIRMED. The dismissal of Barton's separate suit as moot is AFFIRMED. Barton's appeal in SREP's action against the Forest Service is DISMISSED as moot, and the striking of Hobbs's answer is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.