1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 18-cv-04788-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

10 WALTER JAMES KUBON, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 125 11 Defendants. 12

13 14 Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ petition to vacate a void 15 judgment. Defendants did not file an opposition by the court’s deadline. Having read the 16 papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and 17 good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to strike. 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the “court may strike from a 19 pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous 20 matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The function of a motion to strike is to “avoid the 21 expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by 22 dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 23 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Motions to strike 24 “should not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no 25 possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.” Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, 26 Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). 27 Defendants previously challenged and appealed this court’s May 2, 2019 1 defendants’ petition to vacate this judgment as void is without merit and has no bearing 2 on the subject matter in this litigation. Accordingly, the court STRIKES defendants’ 3 petition. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: April 25, 2022 6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

7 United States District Judge

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27