Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. et al v. Sicoma North America, Inc., No. 3:2013cv02700 - Document 64 (S.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER denying Defendants' 43 Motion to Strike Portions of Consolidated Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 11/3/2014. (jah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. et al v. Sicoma North America, Inc. Doc. 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC./OBAYASHI CORPORATION, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. OFFICINE MECCANICHE GALLETTI-O.M.G. S.R.L., et al., Case No. 13-cv-2700-BAS(JLB) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF No. 43] Defendants. 16 17 18 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 19 20 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), Defendants Plant Outfitters, 21 LLC, Plaint Architects, LLC, and RS1 Holdings, Inc.1 move to strike portions of 22 Plaintiff Shimmick Construction Company Inc./Obayashi Corporation (“SOJV”)’s 23 Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”). The remaining defendants have not 24 joined in the motion to strike. Plaintiff opposes. 25 The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted 26 and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). For the following reasons, the 27 Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike. 28 1 For the purposes of this order, the Court will refer to the moving defendants as “Defendants.” -1- 13cv2700 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff summarizes the nature of this action as follows in its consolidated 2 3 amended complaint: 4 10 This action arises out of the failure of Robert W. Ober and his corporate entities’ to design and provide a conforming concrete batch plant to SOJV and, further, the Sicomarelated entities’ manufacture, sale, and delivery of defective and nonconforming concrete mixers to SOJV for use in the construction of the San Vincente dam-raise project. The nonconformities of the batch plant Mr. Ober and his corporate entities designed and provided have caused substantial damages to SOJV. Likewise, the defective and nonconforming concrete mixers, which are one component of the batch plant, have caused significant damages to SOJV. Consequently, SOJV seeks monetary and equitable relief. (CAC ¶ 1.) In April 2010, Plaintiff “entered into a contract with the San Diego County 11 Water Authority for the construction of the San Vincente Dam-Raise Project[,]” which 12 required raising the height of the dam by 117 feet. (Id. ¶¶ 45–49.) According to 13 Plaintiff, “[t]o produce a sufficient amount of concrete to timely complete the 14 construction of the dam, SOJV required a batch plant capable of producing at least six 15 compacted cubic yards of [roller-compacted concrete (“RCC”)] output per batch.” (Id. 16 ¶ 49.) 5 6 7 8 9 17 In June 2010, Plaintiff executed the first contract with Robert Ober, apparently 18 on behalf of Plant Outfitters, for the purchase of components needed for the batch plant 19 that incorporated a proposal with various obligations related to the mixers among other 20 things. (CAC ¶¶ 74–83; CAC Ex. 3.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff executed the second 21 contract “for a comprehensive design package for a customized RCC conveyor system” 22 with “RS1 Holdings, Inc. dba Plant Architects and Plant Outfitters (Plant Architects).” 23 (CAC ¶ 85; CAC Ex. 4.) The Sicoma Defendants—which consist of Officine 24 Meccaniche Galletti-O.M.G. S.r.l. (“OMG”), Societa Italiana Construzione Macchine 25 S.r.l. (“Sicoma Italy”), and Sicoma North America, Inc.—are parties to this action 26 because they allegedly “manufactured the concrete mixers and wear parts for the 27 concrete mixers (i.e., parts that are expected to wear over time due to use)[.]” (CAC 28 ¶¶ 5–15.) -2- 13cv2700 1 On November 11, 2013, Plaintiff commenced this action against Sicoma North 2 America. On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed another complaint in the Orange County 3 Superior Court against Robert W. Ober, RS1 Holdings, Robert Ober & Associates, Inc., 4 Plant Architects, and Plant Outfitters (collectively, “Ober Defendants”), which was 5 eventually removed to federal court.2 6 On July 10, 2014, Sicoma North America filed its answer and counterclaim to 7 the consolidated amended complaint, and OMG and Sicoma Italy also filed their 8 answer. 9 Eventually, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to consolidate the two 10 actions with this action as the lead case, and later-filed action as the member case. 11 Plaintiff then filed its consolidated amended complaint, which asserts causes of action 12 that range from breach of contract, breaches of warranties, and violations of 13 California’s Unfair Competition Law. There are six causes of action asserted against 14 the Ober Defendants and four asserted against the Sicoma Defendants. Defendants 15 now move to strike portions of the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiff opposes. 16 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Rule 12(f) provides that a federal court may strike from the pleadings any 19 insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The function of a motion to strike is to avoid the unnecessary 21 expenditures that arise throughout litigation by dispensing of any spurious issues prior 22 to trial. Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983); Chong 23 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 428 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1139 (S.D. Cal. 2006). As a 24 general matter: 25 // 26 // 27 28 2 Shimmick Construction Company, Inc./Obayashi Corporation v. Ober, No. 14-cv-952BAS(JLB). -3- 13cv2700 6 [w]hile a Rule 12(f) motion provides the means to excise improper materials from pleadings, such motions are generally disfavored because the motions may be used as delaying tactics and because of the strong policy favoring resolution on the merits. To that end, courts have held that a motion to strike matter from a complaint simply for being redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous “should only be granted if ‘the matter has no logical connection to the controversy at issue and may prejudice one or more of the parties to the suit.’” McRee v. Goldman, No. 11-CV-00991, 2012 WL 929825, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 7 2012) (quoting New York City Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Berry, 667 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1128 8 (N.D. Cal. 2009)). “Where the moving party cannot adequately demonstrate such 9 prejudice, courts frequently deny motions to strike ‘even though the offending matter 10 literally [was] within one or more of the categories set forth in Rule 12(f).’” Berry, 667 11 F. Supp. 2d at 1128. 1 2 3 4 5 12 Rule 8(a) requires each plaintiffs to “plead a short and plain statement of the 13 elements of his or her claim.” Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 849 (9th 14 Cir. 2000). It requires each allegation to be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. 15 P. 8(d)(1). “Rule 8(a) has been held to be violated by a pleading that was needlessly 16 long, or a complaint that was highly repetitious, or confused, or consisted of 17 incomprehensible rambling.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 18 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 19 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was “verbose, 20 confusing and almost entirely conclusory”). 21 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 Defendants move to strike a total of 60 allegations in the complaint.3 They 24 justify their position primarily on two grounds: (1) Defendants would be burdened and 25 3 26 27 28 Defendants’ motion to strike targets several categories of allegations in the CAC: (1) allegations about Mr. Ober’s “day-to-day dealings with SOJV as an agent to the signatory on the contract” (CAC ¶¶ 35, 50, 51, 53, 68, 71, 87–89, 98–100, 102, 104, 106–110, 116, 118–121, 123, 124, 126); (2) allegations about the email signature block (CAC ¶¶ 54, 72, 84, 91, 93, 94, 101, 111, 112, 125); (3) various purportedly immaterial and unnecessary allegations (CAC ¶¶ 24, 90, 92, 128, 129, 138); and (4) various allegations that purportedly “serve no purpose but to burden Defendants” (CAC ¶¶ 58–60, 62–65, 67, 69, 70, 73, 79, 80, 166, 219–221, 231, 273). -4- 13cv2700 1 prejudiced in having to respond to the voluminous allegations; and (2) the complaint’s 2 substantial length “confuses the issues before this Court.” (Defs.’ Mot. 6:14–26; Defs.’ 3 Reply 1:20–3:8.) Defendants also suggest that the enormous volume of allegations 4 serves a “devious or clever” purpose of circumventing this district’s page limitations 5 for briefs in anticipation of a jurisdictional challenge by Defendants. (Defs.’ Mot. 6 4:11–21.) 7 Defendants fail to adequately demonstrate that they would be burdened and 8 consequently prejudiced by having to respond to the copious allegations in the CAC. 9 For good measure, the Sicoma Defendants filed their answers to the CAC, apparently 10 without any problems. (ECF Nos. 41, 42.) The fact that the extensive length of the 11 complaint creates “too much work” is indeed a burden—carried not only by 12 Defendants, but also this Court and the other parties to this action—but it fails to 13 demonstrate prejudice. Consequently, though the Court recognizes that some of the 14 identified allegations are literally within one or more categories set forth in Rule 12(f), 15 granting the motion to strike for this reason is not warranted. See Berry, 667 F. Supp. 16 2d at 1128. 17 The allegations that Defendants identify also do not lead to any confusion 18 regarding the issues. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff may be unnecessarily verbose 19 and over-inclusive, but the considerable length of the complaint is not so convoluted 20 as to warrant relief under Rule 12(f). The fact that Defendants intelligently and 21 meticulously deconstructed and categorized the numerous allegations in the complaint 22 demonstrates that confusion will not be a problem proceeding with the CAC as drafted. 23 Thus, the Court finds that the hefty volume of the allegations is not so burdensome as 24 to confuse issues in this action. 25 In sum, though the significant volume of allegations in the complaint tests the 26 limits of Rule 8(a), it does not do so in a manner that prejudices Defendants or confuses 27 the issues before this Court. See McRee, 2012 WL 929825, at *5. It would have served 28 Defendants better to have spent their resources drafting an answer rather than the briefs -5- 13cv2700 1 for their motion to strike. Furthermore, Defendants’ suggestion of some nefarious 2 purpose in drafting the complaint lacks merit. Plaintiff is entitled to allege facts that 3 are acceptable under the boundaries set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which 4 it has done in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 10, 12. 5 6 7 8 9 IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike portions of the consolidated amended complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 DATED: November 3, 2014 12 Hon. Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- 13cv2700
]]>
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.
