Comin
Comin v. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MARK COMIN, Case No. 19-cv-07261-JD
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE MOTION TO STRIKE
v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 55 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION (IBM),
11 Defendant.
12 Plaintiff Comin has moved to strike all of IBM’s twenty-two affirmative defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Dkt. No. 55. The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed, and relevant factual background is provided in the Court’s dismissal order, Dkt. No. 50. Rule 8(c) requires that affirmative defenses be stated in a defendant’s answer, and lists examples of possible defenses. Rule 12(f) allows a plaintiff to file a motion to strike an “insufficient defense” asserted in the answer. As the Court has stated in prior orders, Rule 12(f) motions are disfavored, and almost never serve any useful purpose. See Inn S.F. Enter., Inc. v. Ninth St. Lodging, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00599-JD, 2016 WL 8469189, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2016). While courts have at times applied the plausibility…