United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
February 24, 2015
FARIBA RAHIMIAN MARNANI, Plaintiff,
MEZZETTI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; JOSE MEZZETTI individually and in his official capacity; HOLMES & USOZ LLP, a California limited liability partnership; and LESLIE HOLMES, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE
LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.
On January 9, 2015, Defendants filed three separate Answers to Plaintiff's Complaint. ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike all of the affirmative defenses contained in each of Defendants' Answers. ECF No. 22. According to the text accompanying electronic docket number 22, Defendants' Oppositions to Plaintiff's motion were due by February 13, 2015. Defendants filed none.
On February 24, 2015-eleven days after Defendants' Oppositions were due-Plaintiff filed a Statement of No Opposition, indicating that "Plaintiff's counsel has not been served with any opposition to the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses Contained in Defendants' Answers (Doc. 22) filed herein on January 30, 2015" and requesting "that the Court grant [Plaintiff's] Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses Contained in Defendants' Answers immediately and without a hearing." ECF No. 24. To date, Defendants have not filed any Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.
"A court must consider the following five factors before striking a pleading or declaring default: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the other party; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 687 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Factors one, two, three, and five all favor granting Plaintiff's motion. The public's interest in the expeditious resolution of cases and the Court's need to manage its docket are best served by granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion now, rather than waiting until after the hearing date set for May 21, 2015-three months from today. Further, the risk of prejudice to Defendants is low because the Court will allow Defendants leave to file amended Answers.
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Strike and, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), VACATES the motion hearing set for May 21, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. See Bd. of Trs. of Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund for N. Cal. v. Kudsk Const., Inc., No. C 12-165 CW, 2012 WL 3010981, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2012) (granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to strike the defendants' answer). Defendants may file amended Answers within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. See Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1176 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (granting motion to strike affirmative defenses but allowing leave for the defendant to file an amended answer).
IT IS SO ORDERED.