Legal Opinion

Kohler v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC

District Court, S.D. California

Decided February 12, 2013No. 11-CV-2025-W-BLMPublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*467ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES [DOC. 69].

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). (Pl.’s Mot. [Doe. 69].) Defendants oppose. (Defs. ’ Opp’n [Doe. 10].) 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-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Plaintiffs motion to strike, and GRANTS Defendants leave to amend selected…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Robbins Ex Rel. Robbins v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
  5. Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Nguyen v. CTS Electronics Manufacturing Solutions Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
  2. Infogroup, Inc. v. DatabaseLLCDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 2015
  3. Roe v. City of San DiegoDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2013
  4. Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2016
  5. Dodson v. Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Co. II, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2013

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API