Legal Opinion
Polk v. Legal Recovery Law Offices
District Court, S.D. California
Decided June 19, 2013No. 12-CV-0641-W-MDDPublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES [DOC. 28] WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
THOMAS J. WHELAN, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendant’s affirmative defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (Mot. [Doc. 28].) Defendants oppose. (Opp’n [Doc. 31].) The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.l). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to strike [Doc. 28] with leave to amend selected affirmative defenses.
I. Background
On March 14, 2012,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Balon v. Enhanced Recovery Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
- Cyber Acoustics, LLC v. Belkin International, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2013
- Weintraub v. Law Office of Patenaude & FelixDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2014
- Unigestion Holding, S.A. v. UPM Tech., Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2018
- Andritz Inc. v. Cortex North America CorporationDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2020
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.