UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 11
will not supply essential elements of a claim that are not initially pled. Richards v.Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 88 (9th Cir. 1988). “[W]hen ruling on a defendant’s motion todismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in thecomplaint.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. “The court need not, however, accept as trueallegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit. Nor isthe court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranteddeductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted).When a party moves to dismiss a complaint on statute of limitations grounds, thefact that the dates as alleged in the complaint fall outside of the limitations period is notenough for dismissal. The motion “can be granted only if the assertions of the complaint,read with the required liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that the statutewas tolled.” Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 1993) (citationand internal quotation marks omitted).
B. Motion for a More Definite Statement
A court may order a more definite statement and “require such detail as may beappropriate in the particular case . . . .” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.1996). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) (“A party may move for a more definite statementof a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague orambiguous that a party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”). Motions for a moredefinite statement are disfavored. In re American Int’l Airways, Inc., 66 B.R. 642, 645(Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1986). “[W]here the information sought by the moving party isavailable and/or properly sought through discovery the motion should be denied.”Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1981).
C. Motion to Strike
A court “may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or anyredundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).“‘Immaterial’ matter is that which has no essential or important relationship to theclaim for relief . . . being pleaded.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9thCir. 1993) (citation omitted), rev’d on other grounds, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U. S.517 (1994). “‘Impertinent’ matter consists of statements that do not pertain, and are notnecessary, to the issues in question.” Id. Allegations may be stricken as scandalous if they “bear no possible relation to the controversy or may cause the objecting partyprejudice.” Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distributing Co., 961 F.2d 654, 664 (7th Cir.1992). “Scandalous” matter includes statements that impugn the character of defendants,
Case 2:09-cv-03987-DSF-MAN Document 32 Filed 08/12/2009 Page 3 of 11