United States District Court, E.D. California
MARIA VARGAS, MARTIN VARGAS, ANGELICA VARGAS, AUGUSTIN VARGAS, ARNULFO BERMUDEZ, JORGE VARGAS, AND PEDRO GARCIA, Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF YOLO, YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, EDWARD PRIETO, HECTOR BAUTISTA, REIKO MATSUMURA, AND GARY HALLENBECK, Defendants.
ORDER
Troy
L. Nunley United States District Judge
This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Maria Vargas, Martin
Vargas, Angelica Vargas, Augustin Vargas, Arnulfo Bermudez,
Jorge Vargas, and Pedro Garcia’s (hereinafter referred
to as “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Strike Defendants
County of Yolo, Yolo County Sheriffs Office, Edward Prieto,
Hector Bautista, Reiko Matsumura, and Gary Hallenbeck’s
(“Defendants”) Answer. (Pl.’s Mot. to
Strike, ECF No. 16.) Defendants oppose the motion.
(Def’s Opp’n, ECF No. 18.) For the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
All
named Plaintiffs are private residents of Yolo County in the
State of California, who at the time of the incident were
present at the Vargas family home located in the town of
Esparto. (Pl.’s Comp., ECF No. 1 at ¶¶5-11;
ECF No. 1 at ¶¶20-21.) Defendants County of Yolo
and Yolo County Sheriff’s Office are “public
entities” within the definition of California
Government Code Section 945. (ECF No. 1 at
¶¶12-13.) Defendant Prieto is the Sherriff of Yolo
County, Defendant Bautista is a sergeant, and Defendants
Matsumura and Hallenbeck are sheriff’s deputies. (ECF
No. 1 at ¶¶14-17.)
Numerous
Plaintiffs and Defendants were involved in separate
altercations while Defendant officers were attempting to
locate one of the Vargas family members on the night of the
incident detailed below. It is unclear from the
parties’ briefs whether Defendants did in fact have a
search warrant in connection with the incident at the Vargas
home. Although confusing, the Court attempts to separate out
the altercations that happened between each Plaintiff and
Defendant below.
On
March 8, 2015, while Plaintiffs were at the Vargas family
home, Defendants Bautista, Matsumura, and Hallenbeck
approached the home with tasers drawn, and began asking
Plaintiffs the location of one of their family members. (ECF
No. 1 at ¶¶22-24.) Defendants Bautista and
Hallenbeck handcuffed Plaintiff Arnulfo Bermudez and entered
the Vargas home through the garage. (ECF No. 1 at
¶¶27-28.)
In the
garage, Defendant Matsumura demanded that Plaintiff Angelica
Vargas put out her cigarette which Plaintiffs claim she did
not understand due to a language barrier. (ECF No. 1 at
¶29.) Defendant Matsumura then patted Angelica Vargas
down, put her in a “wrist lock, ” and used a knee
to force Angelica Vargas onto the ground. (ECF No. 1 at
¶¶30-35.) Defendant Matsumura applied a taser in
“drive-stun” mode to Angelica Vargas as she lay
on the ground. Id. Defendant Matsumura then arrested
Angelica Vargas’s husband Martin Vargas as he protested
his wife’s arrest. (ECF No. 1 at ¶36.)
Defendant
Bautista attempted to enter the Vargas residence from inside
the garage but was stopped by Plaintiff Maria Vargas. (ECF
No. 1 at ¶38.) When Maria Vargas asked for a warrant and
refused to move out of the doorway to the residence without
one, Defendant Bautista forced Maria Vargas to the ground,
and applied handcuffs. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶39-40.)
Defendant
Hallenbeck approached Plaintiff Jorge Vargas and ordered him
to get on the ground. Jorge refused, and Defendant Hallenbeck
shot Jorge Vargas with his taser in “probe” mode
twice as Jorge ran to the backyard of the home. (ECF No. 1 at
¶¶41-43.) Defendant Hallenbeck then subdued Jorge
Vargas with his baton and demanded him to “crawl”
back to the garage to be handcuffed. (ECF No. 1 at ¶44.)
At some
point during the altercation, Plaintiff Augustine Vargas
asked the Defendants why his family was being detained and
stated that he was going to video tape the detention,
whereupon Defendant Matsumura responded with a threat to tase
him. (ECF No. 1 at ¶48.) Defendant Bautista then
handcuffed Augustine Vargas. Defendants Bautista and
Hallenbeck then drew their weapons and searched the Vargas
home. (ECF No. 1 at ¶50.)
Plaintiff
Pedro Garcia asked the deputies if he was under arrest or
being detained to which Defendants answered “no”
and then handcuffed him. (ECF No. 1 at ¶51.)
Following
these events, Plaintiffs were transported to jail, booked,
and released the following day. Plaintiffs Angelica and Jorge
Vargas were transported to the hospital before being
transported to the jail. (ECF No. 1 at ¶52.) The Yolo
County District Attorney initially declined to file criminal
charges against Plaintiffs in connection with the March 8,
2015 incident. (ECF No. 1 at ¶53.)
On
April 24, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a “Citizen’s
Complaint Form” with the Defendant Yolo County Sheriffs
Department. (ECF No. 1 at ¶54.) After what they
perceived as a “threatening” email from Lt.
Torres, Plaintiffs declined to participate in interviews, and
proceeded on the basis of their Complaint Form. (ECF No. 1 at
¶56.) Lt. Pires eventually issued a statement that the
Plaintiffs’ Complaint Form had been unfounded/not
sustained and therefore the Complaint Form was subsequently
closed. (ECF No. 1 at ¶58.)
On June
15, 2015, despite the April 9, 2015 declination to file
charges, the Yolo County District Attorney executed a
criminal complaint against Plaintiffs Maria Vargas for
“Resisting or Obstructing a Peace Officer” and
Jorge Vargas for “Resisting an Executive Officer by
Means of Threats, Force, or Violence” and
“Battery on a Peace Officer.” (ECF No. 1 at
¶57.)
II.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs
assert a variety of federal and state claims against the
named Defendants arising out of the incidents occurring at
the Vargas home on March 8, 2015. On December 8, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint under the Federal Civil
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983 (hereafter,
“§1983”) alleging violations of their First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (See
generally ECF No. 1.) Specifically, the federal claims
include Excessive Force, False Arrest, Unlawful Suppression/
Prior Restraint, Failure to Intervene, Inadequate Customs/
Policies/ Practices, and Inadequate
Training/Supervision/Discipline. Plaintiffs also bring claims
under California State Law. The state claims include Battery,
False Arrest, Unlawful Suppression/Prior Restraint,
Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and
violations of the Bane Act. Id. Based on these
allegations, Plaintiffs seek compensatory, general, and
special damages against all Defendants as well as punitive
damages against Defendants Prieto, Bautista, Matsumura, and
Hallenbeck. (ECF No. 1 at 8.) Plaintiffs are also seeking
attorney fees and litigation costs. (ECF No. 1 at 8.)
On
January 28, 2016, Defendants filed their Answer to
Plaintiffs’ Complaint, asserting eleven affirmative
defenses. (Def.’s Ans., ECF No. 12.) Plaintiffs now
move this Court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f),
to strike all eleven of those affirmative defenses. (See
generally ECF No. 16.)
In
Defendants’ Opposition, Defendants concede that
Defenses One, Two, Eight and Eleven are not proper defenses,
but oppose striking the remaining defenses. (ECF No. 18 at 5:
28; ECF No. 18 at 6:9; ECF No. 18 at 9:4; ECF No. 18 at
11:22.) Specifically, Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’
Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses Three, Four, Five, Six,
Seven, Nine, and Ten. (ECF No. 18.) Accordingly, because
Defendants do not oppose the dismissal of Affirmative
Defenses One, Two, Eight and Eleven, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike with respect to those
Affirmative Defenses.
As
such, the Court turns to whether Affirmative Defenses Three,
Four, Five, Six, Seven, Nine, and Ten should be stricken, and
if so, whether Defendants should be granted leave to amend
these defenses.
III.
STANDARD OF LAW
A.
Motion to Strike
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a court “may
strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(f). “[T]he function
of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of
time and money that must arise from litigating spurious
issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.”
Sidney-Vinstein v. A H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880,
885 (9th Cir. 1983). However, 12(f) motions are
“generally regarded with disfavor because of the
limited importance of pleading in federal practice, and
because they are often used as a delaying tactic.”
Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal, N.A., 290 F.Supp.2d
1101, 1152 (CD. Cal. 2003). “Ultimately, whether to
grant a motion to strike lies within the sound discretion of
the district court.” Id. Unless it would
prejudice the opposing party, courts freely grant leave to
amend stricken pleadings. Wyshak v. City Nat
'l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th
Cir. 1979); see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(2). If
the court is in doubt as to whether the challenged matter may
raise an issue of fact or law, the motion to strike should be
denied, leaving an assessment of the sufficiency of the
allegations for adjudication on the merits. See generally
Whittlestone, Inc. v. HandiCraft Co., 618 F.3d 970,
974-75 (9th Cir. 2010).
B.
Affirmative Defense Pleading Standard
Rule
8(c) provides, in pertinent part, that “a party must
affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative
defense.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(c). The Ninth Circuit has
held that “[t]he key to determining the sufficiency of
pleading an affirmative defense is whether it gives plaintiff
fair notice of the defense.” Wyshak, 607 F.2d
at 827 (citing Conley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41, 47-48
(1957)); accord Simmons v. Navajo,609 F.3d 1011,
1023 (9th Cir. 2010); Schutte & Koerting,Inc. v. Swett & Crawford, 298 Fed.Appx. 613, 615
(9th Cir. 2008). “Fair notice generally requires that
the defendant state the nature and grounds for the
affirmative defense.” Kohler v. Islands
Restaurants, LP.,280 F.R.D. 560, 564 (S.D. Cal. 2012)
(citing Conley, 355 U.S. at 47). “On the other
hand, an affirmative defense is legally ...