Connolly

Levi Strauss & Co. v. Connolly

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 25, 20235:22-cv-04106California666 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 LEVI STRAUSS & CO., Case No. 22-cv-04106-VKD

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S

v. MARCH 23, 2023 “ANSWER AND

COUNTERCLAIM”

DAVID CONNOLLY, Re: Dkt. No. 36 Defendant.

13 On April 12, 2023, plaintiff Levi Strauss & Co. (“LS&Co.”) filed an “Administrative Submission” (Dkt. No. 36) objecting to defendant David Connolly’s March 23, 2023 “Answer and Counterclaim” (Dkt. No. 34 and Dkt. No. 34-1). Noting that Mr. Connolly has filed multiple answers since appearing in this action, LS&Co. contended that Mr. Connolly’s March 23 filing is not authorized. The Court construed LS&Co.’s submission as a Rule 12(f) motion to strike Mr. Connolly’s March 23 “Answer and Counterclaim,” and directed Mr. Connolly to file a response. Dkt. No. 37. In his response, Mr. Connolly indicates that his March 23 filing reflects his intention to amend his prior…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.