Thompson 127943 v. Corizon Health Care Incorporated

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Lamont A Thompson, No. CV-19-02841-PHX-SRB (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Corizon Health Care Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants.

16 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike/Objection” (Doc. 39). Plaintiff moves to strike the affirmative defenses in Defendants’ Answers (Docs. 27, 35). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants “have raised insufficient, non-applicable defenses, which in addition to having no legs to stand on, are largely redundant, immaterial and have no merit.” (Doc. 39).

21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes the court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

23 The purpose of a 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[.]”

25 Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). “Motions to strike are generally viewed with disfavor and are not frequently granted.” Lazar v. Trans Union LLC, 195 F.R.D. 665, 669 (C.D. Cal. 2000). Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that Defendants’ affirmative defenses are insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or || scandalous.

2 Plaintiff also moves to strike Defendant Ryan’s Answer (Doc. 35) in its entirety for || the reason that Defendant Ryan’s attorney failed to file a notice of appearance. (Doc. 39).

4|| Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(a) provides that “no attorney shall appear in any action or file anything in any action without first appearing as counsel of record.” Both || Defendants are represented by the same firm. (Docs. 27, 35). The Court will direct counsel 7\| to file a formal notice of appearance pursuant to Local Rule 83.3(a). However, the Court || does not find that the lack of a formal notice of appearance warrants the drastic sanction of 9|| striking Defendant Ryan’s Answer. Plaintiff’s request will be denied. Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's “Motion to Strike/Objection” (Doc. 39).

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel shall file a formal notice of || appearance on behalf of Defendants no later than October 3, 2019.

13 Dated this 26th day of September, 2019.

16 Honorable Eileen S. Willett 17 United States Magistrate Judge _2-