United States of America v. Ivan M. Forbes et al, No. 2:2014cv03884 - Document 25 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE 18 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Docket No. 8 is hereby STRICKEN. Defendants are given leave to file an answer to the Complaint not later than ten days from the effective date of this order. Failure to do so may result in a judgment of default. (lc). Modified on 11/5/2014 .(lc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States of America v. Ivan M. Forbes et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. IVAN M. FORBES; ELKE J. FORBES, 15 16 Defendants. ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 14-03884 DDP (Ex) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE (DOCKET NUMBER 18) 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike 18 19 Defendants’ responsive document in its entirety as immaterial or 20 impertinent. 21 adopts the following order. 22 I. 23 Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court BACKGROUND Defendants Ivan and Elke Forbes did not file United States 24 federal tax returns for the years 2002-2006. 25 Plaintiff United States of America has assessed back taxes and 26 penalties against Ivan and Elke in the amounts of $108,985.34 and 27 $22,261.83, respectively. 28 reduce the assessments to judgment. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-16.) (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.) It now seeks to Dockets.Justia.com 1 Defendants have filed with the Court a “Response to Summons 2 and Complaint,” which Plaintiff takes as an answer but which could 3 also be read as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 4 (Dkt. No. 8.1) 5 immaterial and/or impertinent under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 6 II. 7 Plaintiff moves to strike this “Response” as LEGAL STANDARD A court may strike any “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 8 scandalous matter” from a pleading. 9 “‘Immaterial’ matter is that which has no essential or important Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 10 relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded. 11 ‘Impertinent’ matter consists of statements that do not pertain, 12 and are not necessary, to the issues in question.” 13 v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) rev'd as to other 14 matters, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). 15 III. DISCUSSION Fantasy, Inc. 16 Striking is “generally disfavored because of the limited 17 importance of pleadings in federal practice and because it is 18 usually used as a delaying tactic.” 19 Co., 372 F. Supp. 2d 556, 561 (C.D. Cal. 2005). 20 defendant’s responsive pleading in its entirety, in particular, is 21 a drastic step that the Court is reluctant to entertain. 22 RDF Media Ltd. v. Fox Broad. Striking a pro se Nonetheless, in this case, that step is warranted. 23 Defendants’ “Response” is utterly non-responsive to the Complaint. 24 To the extent that it makes cognizable arguments, they appear to be 25 three in number. First, Defendants assert that they live in the 26 1 27 28 Defendants were served with the Complaint on May 29, 2014. The “Response” document was filed on June 24, 2014. Whatever its nature, the Court notes that it was filed outside the deadline established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). 2 1 “Republic of California without UNITED STATES” and that they 2 “transact at arm’s length with ‘this State’ and do not accept the 3 liability or duty of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed 4 contract, commercial agreement or implied trust relationship.” 5 (“Response” ¶¶ 1, 4.) 6 produce the written contract that the court presumes to be 7 administering so that we may inspect it for authenticity and to 8 determine iny duties and obligations that we may have under said 9 contract.” They demand that “the plaintiff . . . (Id. at ¶ 10.) The gravamen of this argument appears 10 to be that they are not part of the United States and do not 11 recognize the authority of the United States government over them 12 except through mutually-agreed contract. 13 The Court rejects this argument as a cognizable defense. 14 California is one of the United States. 15 Admission of the State of California into the Union, 9 Stat. 452 16 (1850); compare Cal. Const., preamble (1849) (“We, the people of 17 California . . . .”), with Cal. Const., preamble (1879) (“We, the 18 People of the State of California . . . .”). 19 law is the “supreme Law of the Land” in the States. 20 art. VI, cl 2. 21 324-25, 4 L. Ed. 97 (1816) (“There can be no doubt that it was 22 competent to the people to invest the general government with all 23 the powers which they might deem proper and necessary . . . and to 24 give them a paramount and supreme authority.”). 25 See An Act for the United States federal U.S. Const., See also Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, Defendants are (admittedly) residents of California, a State 26 of the United States; hence they are subject to United States law. 27 Because any argument otherwise “has no essential or important 28 relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being 3 1 pleaded,” the Court finds such arguments and any matter surrounding 2 them to be immaterial. 3 Defendants’ second apparent argument is that the Court itself 4 does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and/or that venue is 5 improper. 6 a cognizable defense; however, Defendants present no facts or 7 argument suggesting that jurisdiction or venue is improper. 8 Indeed, Defendants do not even plead or allege that jurisdiction 9 actually is improper; rather, they simply state that they (“Response,” ¶¶ 12, 17. See also Dkt. No. 21.) This is 10 “suspect[]” it to be so. 11 discourse on “Elements of Jurisdiction.” 12 not correspond to any cognizable jurisdictional argument, and seem 13 instead to be mostly concerned with due process. 14 appear to be nothing more than a “series of conclusory statements 15 asserting the existence of an affirmative defense without stating a 16 reason why that affirmative defense might exist.” 17 Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1172 18 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 19 They also provide, mid-document, a But these “Elements” do These defenses Barnes v. AT & T Defendants also do not allege any actual violations of due 20 process, which might be considered their third argument. 21 they “find,” conclusorily, that “the plaintiff has not properly 22 identified the accused,” “the accuser is not properly named,” “the 23 plaintiff has made no proper verification of the accusation sworn 24 under penalties of perjury,” and “the accuser has not complied with 25 law, procedure, and form in bringing the charge and therefore 26 served defective process.” 27 provide no factual or legal basis for these apparent defenses. 28 Court interprets Defendants’ language liberally, but even so, the (Id. at ¶¶ 13-16.) 4 Rather, Again, Defendants The 1 arguments amount to nothing on their face. 2 sufficiently identified, as evidenced by the fact that they are 3 well aware that there is a court proceeding against them. 4 Plaintiff is also sufficiently identified as the United States of 5 America. 6 provide sworn declarations with its complaint. 7 identify no cognizable defect in Plaintiff’s service of process. 8 9 Defendants have been Plaintiff is not required, at the pleadings stage, to Finally, Defendants As to the first three issues, Defendants have given no hint as to any “set of circumstances” under which their defenses could 10 succeed. 11 Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1032 (C.D. Cal. 2002). 12 defenses are “insufficient” within the meaning of Rule 12(f). 13 to the fourth, although improper service is a cognizable argument, 14 Defendants’ allegation is simply conclusory, and Defendants point 15 to no fact showing improper service. 16 Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pac., Hence, these As (“Response” ¶¶ 5-7.) Finally, other parts of the “Response” are simply cryptic: 17 e.g., “since plaintiff has not enjoined Ivan and Elke, the man and 18 woman real parties, we must return the court documents to avoid the 19 penalty of false impersonation.” 20 do not bear any relationship to any asserted claim or defense, they 21 are immaterial. 22 (Compl. at ¶ 18.) Because they When all such material is stripped away from the “Response,” 23 there is so little left that the document cannot function as a 24 pleading. 25 document in its entirety. 26 IV. 27 28 Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to strike the CONCLUSION Dkt. No. 8 is hereby STRICKEN. Defendants are given leave to file an answer to the Complaint not later than ten days from the 5 1 effective date of this order. 2 Failure to do so may result in a judgment of default. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: November 5, 2014 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
