J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Walia et al, No. 3:2010cv05136 - Document 21 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting 10 Motion to Strike (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Walia et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 AJAY WALIA and RAKESH KUMAR SONDHI, A/K/A RAKESH K. SONDHI, individually and d/b/a PIZZA AND PIPES; and INDIA HOUSE LLC, an unknown business entity d/b/a PIZZA AND PIPES, 14 Defendants. 15 ) Case No. 10-5136 SC ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S ) MOTION TO STRIKE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Strike 19 Defendant's Affirmative Defenses brought by Plaintiff J & J Sports 20 Productions, Inc. ("Plaintiff") against Defendant India House LLC 21 ("India House"). 22 briefed. 23 Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the Motion suitable for 24 determination without oral argument. 25 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion. ECF No. 10 ("MTS."). The Motion is fully ECF Nos. 15 ("Opp'n"), 18 ("Reply"). Pursuant to Civil For the following reasons, 26 27 28 II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff owns exclusive nationwide television rights to Dockets.Justia.com 1 "'Firepower': Manny Pacquiao v. Miguel Cotto, WBO Welterweight," a 2 November 14, 2009 closed-circuit telecast of boxing matches and 3 commentary ("the program"). 4 November 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed this action alleging that 5 Defendants Ajay Walia ("Walia"), Rakesh K. Sondhi ("Sondhi"), and 6 India House, d/b/a Pizza and Pipes restaurant, unlawfully 7 intercepted and displayed the program at Pizza and Pipes in Redwood 8 City, California. 9 Pipes, and Defendants Sondhi and Walia are shareholders in India United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 House. See id. ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶ 11. On Defendant India House owns Pizza and See ECF No. 20 ("Mar. 14, 2011 Order"). On December 27, 2010, Defendants Walia and Sondhi filed a 12 Motion to Dismiss, and Defendant India House filed an Answer 13 denying Plaintiff's allegations, setting forth nine affirmative 14 defenses, and expressly reserving the right to assert additional 15 affirmative defenses based on information learned during discovery. 16 ECF Nos. 8 ("Answer"), 9 ("MTD"). 17 dismissed Plaintiff's claims against individual defendants Sondhi 18 and Walia with leave to amend. 19 now moves to strike all of India House's affirmative defenses, and 20 its reservation of the right to assert additional affirmative 21 defenses, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). On March 14, 2011, this Court See Mar. 14, 2011 Order. Plaintiff 22 23 24 III. LEGAL STANDARD Rule 12(f) provides that "[t]he court may strike from a 25 pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, 26 impertinent, or scandalous matter." 27 Motions to strike are generally regarded with disfavor. 28 County of San Mateo, No. 06-3923, 2007 WL 902551, *1 (N.D. Cal. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Ganley v. 1 Mar. 22, 2007). The essential function of a Rule 12(f) motion is 2 to "avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from 3 litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to 4 trial." 5 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 6 7 IV. DISCUSSION 8 Plaintiff argues that all of India House's affirmative 9 defenses and its reservation of the right to add additional United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 defenses should be stricken on various grounds. 11 India House does not oppose the Motion with regard to eight of the 12 nine affirmative defenses and the reservation. 13 Rather, it notes that it filed a First Amended Answer, ECF No. 14 14 ("FAA"), on Feb. 3, 2011, which eliminated eight of the nine 15 affirmative defenses and the reservation and added additional facts 16 to the sole affirmative defense remaining. 17 that the FAA was not properly filed under the Federal Rules of 18 Civil Procedure. 19 the FAA "as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 15(b)." 21 Reply at 2. 23 Rule 15(a)(1)(B). 26 27 28 Plaintiff contends India House asserts that it filed Rule 15(b) pertains to amendment of pleadings during and after trial and does not apply here. 25 Opp'n at 3. Opp'n at 2. 22 24 Id. MTS at 4-11. The Court surmises Defendants meant Rule 15(a)(1) states: A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) (emphasis added). 3 "In all other cases, a 1 party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written 2 consent or the court's leave." 3 Plaintiff rightly notes that India House may not rely on Rule 4 15(a)(1)(A) because it did not file the FAA within 21 days of 5 serving the original Answer, and it may not rely on Rule 6 15(a)(1)(B) because an answer is not a pleading to which a 7 responsive pleading is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) 8 (response to an answer not permitted unless ordered by the court). 9 Therefore, India House was not permitted to file its FAA "as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Here, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 matter of course"; rather, under Rule 15(a)(2), it was required to 11 obtain Plaintiff's written consent or the Court's leave before 12 filing the FAA. 13 before the Court, and the original Answer is treated as the 14 operative pleading for the remainder of this Order.1 As it did not do so, the FAA is not properly India House does not oppose Plaintiff's Motion with regard to 15 16 affirmative defenses (1)-(3) or (5)-(9), or with regard to the 17 express reservation of the right to assert future affirmative 18 defenses. 19 Motion to Strike these portions of the Answer. Opp'n at 3. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's All that remains for the Court to address is India House's 20 21 fourth affirmative defense labeled "actions of others." 22 43. 23 House is not liable for the acts of others over whom it has no 24 control. 25 perpetrators of the alleged wrongful conduct." 26 argues that this assertion is not an affirmative defense but rather 27 a denial of an element of Plaintiff's cause of action. 28 Answer ¶ In its fourth affirmative defense, India House states: "India There is no agency between India House and the 1 Id. Plaintiff MTS at 8. India House asks the Court to retroactively grant leave to file the FAA. The Court declines to do so. 4 1 The Court agrees. "Affirmative defenses plead matters extraneous 2 to the plaintiff's prima facie case, which deny plaintiff's right 3 to recover, even if the allegations of the complaint are true." 4 Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Main Hurdman, 655 F.Supp. 259, 262 5 (E.D. Cal. 1987) (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640-41 6 (1980)). 7 or allegations that the Plaintiff cannot prove the elements of his 8 claims are not affirmative defenses." 9 LLC v. Nguyen, No. 10-cv-00168, 2010 WL 3749284, *5 (N.D. Cal. By contrast, "denials of the allegations in the complaint G & G Closed Circuit Events, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Sept. 23, 2010). Here, Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that 11 each and every Defendant and/or their agents unlawfully intercepted 12 and displayed the program. 13 assertion that the perpetrators of the alleged wrongful conduct 14 were not its agents is a direct denial of the allegations in the 15 Complaint; it does not deny Plaintiff's right to recover if the 16 allegations in the Complaint are true. 17 grants the Motion to Strike India House's fourth affirmative 18 defense because it is not actually an affirmative defense. 19 ruling does not preclude India House from asserting this claim as 20 an ordinary defense to liability. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Compl. ¶ 14. 5 Thus, India House's Accordingly, the Court This 1 2 V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to 3 Strike filed by Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. against 4 Defendant India House LLC. 5 April 29, 2011 remains as scheduled. The Case Management Conference set for 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Dated: March 28, 2011 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
