WESTWOOD v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

Case No. 2:16-cv-02409-RFB-GWF.

GIOVANNA WESTWOOD, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 140 Negotiable Instrument
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Giovanna Westwood, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., Defendant, represented by Kent F. Larsen , Smith Larsen & Wixom.


ORDER

GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Strike Response (ECF No. 10), filed on January 25, 2017.

Plaintiff filed her Complaint (ECF No. 3) on December 19, 2016. Defendant filed its Answer (ECF No. 7) on January 10, 2017. Plaintiff filed her Response to Answer (ECF No. 9) on January 19, 2017. Defendant requests that the Court strike Plaintiff Response to Defendant's Answer (ECF No. 9) because it is not a pleading pursuant to Rule 7 and as redundant, immaterial, and impertinent pursuant Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under Rule 12(f), the Court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The essential function of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial. Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517, 114 S.Ct. 1023. LR 7-2(g) states that "[a] party may not file supplemental pleadings, briefs, authorities, or evidence without leave of court granted for good cause. The judge may strike supplemental filings made without leave of court."

In addition, Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that "The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion." Plaintiff did not file points and authorities in response to Defendant's instant motion to strike. Therefore, Plaintiff is considered to have consented to the granting of Defendant's motion under LR 7-2(d). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant's Motion to Strike Response (ECF No. 10) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff's Response to Answer (ECF No. 9) from the docket.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases