The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. 61)
Defendants move to strike portions of Plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Defendants' failure to support their laundry list of materials to be stricken belies their true intent, which is to continue their strategy of delaying the resolution of this case. Finding no basis to strike any portion of the amended complaint, the Court denies the motion.
I. Materials That Defendants Move to Strike
Defendants move this Court to strike the following portions of Plaintiff's complaint:
1. The word "miserably" from paragraph 2.
2. The final three phrases of paragraph 6, in which Plaintiff sets forth her standing to seek relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act: she has bothered to make herself aware of the hotel's construction and alteration history triggering the obligation to provide disabled access; she has invested substantial money and time to research and determine the hotel's obligations; and she promises to protect and fully enforce the Public Interest ahead of the personalized interests she has in this suit. Doc 58 at 5.
3. Footnote 1 of paragraph 14:
Information concerning Ms. Lema's church and ministry can be found at http://revnevalema.cityslide.com/n.html. A video example of her speaking ministry is viewable at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf10613KMUE&feature=relat ed.
4. The phrase "now needs the use of a wheelchair over 50 percent of the time" in Paragraph 14.
16. Lema estimates her ministry in Merced has reached 500-600 people in the Merced area not including those who have viewed her on television. She estimates she has gotten to know personally, and on a name basis, approximately 100 people in the area.
6. Paragraphs 30 to 35, except for the last sentence of paragraph 35 ("The acts and omissions of defendants set forth herein were in violation of plaintiff's rights under the ADA, Public Law 101-336, and the regulations promulgated thereunder,
28 CFR Part 36ff." Doc. 58 at 24.) These paragraphs quote sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act that Plaintiff alleges to be applicable to the case.
7. Paragraph 39, except for the last sentence ("On information and belief, the subject facility constitutes a 'commercial facility,' and defendants have, since the date of enactment of the ADA, performed alterations (including alterations to areas of primary function) to the subject building and its facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities, which fail to provide facilities and paths of travel to such areas that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, in violation of Section 303(a)(2), and the ...