LumaSense Technologies, Inc. v. Advanced Engineering Services, LLC
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 LUMASENSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 20-cv-07905-WHO
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
STRIKE
ADVANCED ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 48 11 Defendant.
12 The purpose of an answer in federal court is to clarify for the parties what is at issue in the case. Lawyers are usually able to address ambiguities or insufficiencies in an answer without litigating motions to strike, which are rarely cost-effective unless directed at an important legal issue. Before me is plaintiff LumaSense Technologies, Inc. (“LumaSense”) motion to strike four of Defendant Advanced Engineering Services, LLC’s (“AES”) responses in its answer to LumaSense’s complaint, for insufficient denial of allegations, and six of AES’s affirmative defenses on the grounds that the affirmative defenses are either not affirmative defenses or insufficiently pleaded under Twombly and Iqbal. I find that two of AES’s…