Estate of Alejandro Sanchez v. County of Stanislaus

BACKGROUND

22 The factual allegations of this case have been set forth in a prior order of this court and 23 need not be repeated here. (See Doc. No. 28.) After the court granted in part defendants’ motion 24 to dismiss (id.), plaintiffs filed the operative first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 33 (“FAC”).) 25 Defendants filed their answer to the FAC on June 27, 2019 (Doc. No. 41), in response to which 26 plaintiffs filed the instant motion to strike on July 17, 2019. (Doc. No. 42.) In that motion, 27 plaintiffs argue that the third affirmative defense should be stricken because it is duplicative of 28 the eleventh affirmative defense. (Id. at 5.) Defendants opposed the motion on August 6, 2019. (Doc. No. 43.) LEGAL STANDARD Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “The 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.” …