1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
`Pro Se Plaintiff
`
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95816
`
`(408) 883-4428
`
`legal@ashleygjovik.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASHLEY GJOVIK, an individual,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`APPLE INC, a corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`
`IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)
`
`
`
`
`
`HEARING:
`
`Dept: Courtroom 5, 17th Floor (Virtual)
`
`Date: May 16, 2024
`
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`PAGE i
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`ACTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`III. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`IV. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE MOTION IS IMPROPER ................................ 5
`
`V. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED DUE TO NONCONFORMITY WITH FRCP 12(F) .................. 6
`
`VI. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE STATEMENTS ARE MATERIAL ................. 6
`
`VII. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE DEFENDANT IS NOT PREJUDICED .................... 9
`
`VIII. IF MOTION GRANTED, AMENDMENT SHOULD ALSO BE GRANTED ........................................... 10
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`PAGE ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------11
`
`California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal.
`
`2002). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D.Cal. 1991). -------------------------------------- 8, 10
`
`Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). ------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Cortina v. Goya Foods, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1182 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Rosales v. Citibank, 133 F. Supp.
`
`2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2001)). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
`
`Da Chong Hong, Ltd. v. Silk Greenhouse, Inc., 719 F.Supp. 1072, 1073 (MD FL 1989). --------------------------------- 9
`
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2018). ------------------------------------------------------ 4
`
`Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). -------- 8
`
`Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510
`
`U.S. 517 (1994).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Ferretti v. Pfizer Inc., 855 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2012). --------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`Gjovik v. Apple Inc., 23-cv-04597-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2024). ----------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
`Haley Paint Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 279 F.R.D. 331, 335 (D. Md. 2012) --------------------------------- 9
`
`Holt v. Quality Egg, LLC, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1169 (N.D. Iowa 2011). --------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec. Lit., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2000). -------------------------------------------- 8
`
`In re Fibrogen Sec. Litig., 21-cv-02623-EMC, (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023). -------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Mason v. Ashbritt, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-01062-DMR, 6-7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2020).------------------------------------- 6
`
`Neveu v. City of Fresno, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2005). ------------------------------------------------------ 8
`
`Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004). --------------------------------------- 7
`
`Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). --------------------------------------------- 6
`
`See Barnes v. AT & T Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1170 (N.D. Cal. 2010). -10
`
`Stanbury Law Firm v. IRS, 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000). -------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Tasion Communications Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., No. C-13-1803 EMC, 6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2014).--------- 5
`
`U.S. ex rel. Ackley, 110 F. Supp. 2d 395 (D. Md. 2000) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`United States v. 729.773 Acres of Land, Etc.,531 F. Supp. 967, 971 (D.Haw. 1982). -------------------------------------- 9
`
`Walters v. Fid. Mortg. of CA, 730 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1196 (E.D. Cal. 2010). ------------------------------------------------ 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`PAGE iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010). --------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2010) ---------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 975-976 (9th Cir.2010). ---------------------------------------------- 5
`
`Williams v. County of Alameda, 26 F. Supp. 3d 925, 948 (N.D. Cal. 2014). ------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`Wyshak v. City Nat'l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir.1979). ----------------------------------------------------------------10
`
`Yamamoto v. Omiya, 564 F.2d 1319, 1327 (9th Cir.1977).---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
` RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i, 4, 5, 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
`
`TREATISES
`
`5C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1380 (3d ed. 2004). -------------------------------- 8, 10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`PAGE iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Ashley Gjovik, respectfully submits the following Memorandum of
`
`Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike, Docket No. 48. Defendant’s
`
`Motion to Strike should be denied for a variety of reasons including due to Defendant’s attempt
`
`to use a Motion to Strike as if it were a motion to dismiss, failure to provide justifications for its
`
`requests to strike, failure to plead prejudice, Defendant’s attempt to “strike” and remove facts
`
`integral to this matter, and Defendant’s repeated substantive references and quotes to prior mooted
`
`pleadings in violation of Local Rule 10-1 and this Court’s Jan. 30, 2024 Order. [Order at Docket
`
`11
`
`No. 46].
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Here within, Plaintiff responds to most of Defendant’s substantive arguments in
`
`this Opposition brief; however, Plaintiff will not engage with Defendant’s proffered substantive
`
`arguments based on mooted prior pleadings, as to not violate this Court’s rules. Some of
`
`Defendant’s assertions of fact and conclusion are misrepresentations, or even false – however,
`
`Plaintiff cannot correct those statements without violating this Court’s rules, by engaging in
`
`discussion of the substantive content of her prior mooted pleadings – so she will not.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff will also not be responding to Defendant’s various attacks on her character
`
`and competence. Plaintiff generally denies Defendant’s factual allegations in their Motion to
`
`Strike and Motion to Dismiss, but will not address each issue – as the points are compromised
`
`with inappropriate commentary and editorialization, and also frequently arising out of facts from
`
`mooted filings. Plaintiff will, however, address Defendant’s complaints about her complaint
`
`amendments below.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff filed her original Complaint in this matter on September 7 2023. (Docket
`
`No. 1). Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant on September 15-18 2023 via USPS and email.
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`PAGE 1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`(Cert. of Serv., Docket No. 7), but the papers were inexplicitly refused by Defendant’s service
`
`agent on September 18 2023. (Cert. of Serv., Docket No. 8, at page 1 and 8). Plaintiff then hired
`
`a process server for personal service at Defendant’s corporate office, which was completed on
`
`September 21 2023. Id at 1-2. Plaintiff also had the papers redelivered, with agreement from the
`
`process agent that the papers would be accepted this time, and they were accepted on September
`
`19 2023. Id. Plaintiff emailed Defendant’s executives about her civil lawsuit against Apple on
`
`September 15 2023 and again on September 22 2023 – without response. Defendant’s responsive
`
`pleading was due October 10 2023, so Plaintiff emailed Apple again on October 4 2023, and
`
`informed Apple she planned to request a default judgment if they do not respond; and also
`
`notifying them of her plans to preserve punitive damages upon default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a), Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 55.
`
`5.
`
`The next day, on October 5 2023, five attorneys from Orrick emailed Plaintiff and
`
`notified her of their appearance on behalf of Defendant. In her earlier emails, Plaintiff had
`
`provided notice to Apple of claims she forgot to include in her Original Complaint and that she
`
`planned to include when she has an opportunity to amended her complaint as a matter of course.
`
`In their first email to Plaintiff, Defendant’s lawyers asked Plaintiff if she would be willing to file
`
`her amended complaint prior to Apple having to file their first responsive pleading, which was
`
`due in five days. Defendant asked Plaintiff if she would do Apple a favor, as to give Apple’s
`
`attorneys more time to prepare to fight her in this courtroom.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff agreed to Apple’s request as long as she could preserve her one “free”
`
`amendment as a matter of course. After some negotiation, both parties came to an agreement with
`
`a proposed stipulation filed on October 9 2023. (Docket No. 9.) The stipulation was approved by
`
`Magistrate Judge Beeler on October 10 2023. (Docket No. 12). The stipulation preserved Plaintiff
`
`is one “free” amendment as a matter of course, and thus Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`PAGE 2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`essentially became her original complaint, as it was the first version of her complaint that the
`
`Defendant responded to. Taking advantage of the opportunity to revise her original complaint
`
`without prejudicing the Defendant, Plaintiff did add toxic tort claims of nuisance and
`
`ultrahazardous activities. (Docket No. 17).
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint was per Order of this court. (Docket No. 47.)
`
`Thus, Plaintiff has actually only amended her complaint once so far, on her own initiative. Further,
`
`Plaintiff has not added new legal claims at all in the pleadings Defendant has responded to.
`
`Plaintiff’s pleadings have always included claims for Breach of Implied Contract and Good
`
`Faith/Fair Dealing,1 NIED,2 and California UCL §17200.3
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff’s first three complaints listed a number of claims on the front cover sheet,
`
`but also had additional claims detailed within the arguments and in the Table of Contents. In
`
`Plaintiff’s TAC, she reorganized her claims to follow the traditional “Counts” for each claim,
`
`which did not increase the amount of claims, but instead revealed the true amount of existing
`
`claims. Any confusion about how many claims Plaintiff has, is Plaintiff’s fault for previously
`
`failing to organize her complaint with standard numbered counts for each claim.
`
`9.
`
`On Jan. 30 2024, your Honor provided Plaintiff constructive criticism about her
`
`pleading and offered suggestions for improvement, with a request that Plaintiff file another
`
`amendment that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, prior to Defendant responding. Gjovik v. Apple
`
`Inc., 23-cv-04597-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2024). Your honor dismissed Plaintiff’s Second
`
`Amended Complaint without prejudice, denied her Motion for Judicial notice, and denied
`
`Defendant’s pending Motions as moot. Id.
`
`
`1 Breach of Implied Contract and Good Faith/Fair Dealing: Original Complaint ¶ 399; FAC ¶
`1046; SAC ¶ 1389; TAC ¶ 234.
`2 NIED: Original Complaint ¶ 140; FAC ¶ 1060; SAC ¶ 1422; TAC ¶ 252.
`3 California UCL §17200: Original Complaint ¶ 401, 440; FAC ¶ 1026, 1119; SAC ¶ 1305,
`1336, 1364, 1373; TAC ¶ 224, 253.
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`PAGE 3
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint on February 27 2024 and it was 75
`
`pages total (and without exhibits or other attachments, or supporting motions) in a good faith effort
`
`to be as concise and efficient as possible. On March 26 2024, Defendant, then filed its latest set of
`
`responsive pleadings, this time: a Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, and Motion for Judicial
`
`Notice with a total of eight documents and around one hundred sixty pages. (Docket Nos. 48, 49,
`
`50.). Plaintiff is now forced to respond to all three motions with memos in opposition and proposed
`
`orders. Separate Oppositions to the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judicial Notice are filed
`
`concurrently.
`
`III.
`
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`11.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) provides that “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an
`
`insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Davidson
`
`v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2018).
`
`12.
`
`Defendant’s Motion to Strike requests to strike three categories of content from
`
`Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. “Part B” includes both the entirety of Plaintiff’s legal
`
`claims (“counts”) if each claim was dismissed under Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and also
`
`hand-selected facts that Defendant unilaterally decided were only related to claims they requested
`
`to be dismissed as “immaterial,” “irrelevant,” and/or “redundant.” (Docket No. 49.) Further, the
`
`content in “Part A” also includes additional facts that Defendant acknowledged were not
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`dependent on the claims subject to Motion to Dismiss, and yet still unilaterally spotlighted as
`
`‘immaterial’ to the controversy.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff does not believe any of the content proposed to strike from Plaintiff’s
`
`complaint is immaterial or seems appropriate for a Motion to Strike.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`PAGE 4
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE MOTION IS
`IMPROPER
`
`14.
`
`In the first and second category of content, Apple’s Motion to Strike attempts to
`
`act as if it were part of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, and Apple even supplements
`
`its concurrent Motion to Dismiss with the request to dismiss the factual statements in its second
`
`category of content (so, dismiss even more things). It is unclear why Defendant wants to strike
`
`claims that would be dismissed as an amendment would be needed anyways and striking the claims
`
`would force Plaintiff to have to rewrite any dismissed without prejudice section from scratch.
`
`15.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions already exists to dismiss claims, and thus
`
`interpreting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) as also dismissing claims would create redundancy. Whittlestone,
`
`Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010). A motion to strike is “neither an authorized
`
`nor a proper way to procure the dismissal of all or a part of a complaint." Tasion Communications
`
`Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., No. C-13-1803 EMC, 6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2014).
`
`16.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) is “neither an authorized nor a proper way to procure the
`
`dismissal of all or a part of a complaint.” Yamamoto v. Omiya, 564 F.2d 1319, 1327 (9th Cir.1977).
`
`The proper medium for challenging the sufficiency of factual allegations in a complaint is through
`
`Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(f). Williams v. County of Alameda, 26 F. Supp. 3d 925, 948 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2014). Defendant also requests to strike claims for damages from Plaintiff’s complaint, which is
`
`another improper use of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) motion. Rule 12(f) does not authorize a district
`
`court to dismiss a claim for damages on the basis that it is precluded as a matter of law.
`
`Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 975-976 (9th Cir.2010). Ferretti v. Pfizer
`
`Inc., 855 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
`
`17.
`
`The Defendants request that the Court construe their response to the motion to
`
`strike as a motion to dismiss, and the Defendants provide no legal authority for this request. The
`
`request should be denied.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`PAGE 5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED DUE TO NONCONFORMITY WITH
`FRCP 12(F)
`
`18.
`
`Defendant’s fail to “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order” as
`
`required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B) which requires the movant to cite to the rule, statute, or case
`
`that gives the court the authority to grant the motion. Apple cites no legal authority as to why the
`
`specific facts and allegations they propose to erase are unacceptable to them. Many of the facts
`
`and allegations they look to strike seem critical and central to the case.
`
`19.
`
`"The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under
`
`attack," and "the Court must view the pleading under attack in the light more favorable to the
`
`pleader when ruling upon a motion to strike." Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home
`
`Furnishings, Inc., 301 F.R.D. 487, 489 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted). Mason v. Ashbritt,
`
`Inc., Case No. 19-cv-01062-DMR, 6-7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2020). Defendant has only provide
`
`vague, conclusory statements and fails to properly justify why the content they selected to strike
`
`is actually immaterial to the controversy.
`
`20.
`
`Even matters that are “not strictly relevant” to claim at issue should still not be
`
`stricken if they provide “important context and background” to claims asserted or are relevant to
`
`some object of the pleader’s suit). Holt v. Quality Egg, LLC, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1169 (N.D.
`
`Iowa 2011). Unlike a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) , a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) motion
`
`does not test the sufficiency of the complaint. Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d
`
`729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987).
`
`VI. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE STATEMENTS ARE
`MATERIAL
`
`21.
`
`A motion to strike should only be granted if the matter sought to be stricken clearly
`
`has no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation. See Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`PAGE 6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`
`Inc., 758 F.Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991).4 A court must deny the motion to strike if there is
`
`any doubt whether the allegations in the pleadings might be relevant in the action. In re
`
`2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec. Lit., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965-966 (C.D. Cal. 2000). “Striking a party’s
`
`pleading . . . is an extreme and disfavored measure.” BJC Health Sys. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 478 F.3d
`
`908, 917 (8th Cir. 2007); See Stanbury Law Firm v. IRS, 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000).
`
`22.
`
`A matter is immaterial if it “has no essential or important relationship to the claim for
`
`relief or the defenses being plead.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 974 (9th
`
`Cir. 2010) (quoting Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other
`
`grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). “Immaterial matter, is that which has no essential or important
`
`relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984
`
`F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517
`
`(1994).
`
`23.
`
`The amount of content, and the specific topics, that Defendant is motioning to strike is
`
`perplexing. The least strange category is the “count” sections for claims, if a motion dismiss was
`
`granted – however it seems duplicative, unneeded, and even obstructive for amendments and appeals.
`
`Next. The remainder of “Part B,” are the sections Defendant suggests are only relevant of those
`
`“counts” (even though they’re in the facts section), and Defendant suggests those facts should be
`
`removed as well.
`
`24.
`
`Finally, the strangest selection of content to strike are the paragraphs Defendant claims
`
`are completely immaterial to any of Plaintiff’s claims (“Part A”). This content will not be reviewed in
`
`depth as Defendant has not actually provided any justification as to why they feel it is immaterial and
`
`irrelevant to the controversy, and Rule 12(f) motions require well plead requests and a showing of
`
`
`4 See also, e.g., Walters v. Fid. Mortg. of CA, 730 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1196 (E.D. Cal. 2010); Platte
`Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004). Yates v. Perko's
`CAFÉ, No. C 11-00873 SI, Related Case No. C 11-1571, 5 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2011).
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`PAGE 7
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`
`prejudice as a basis for making the request in the first place – which does not seem to be happening
`
`here.
`
`25.
`
`Apple has nominated the following topics as completely immaterial to Plaintiff’s
`
`lawsuit: Plaintiff’s open CERCLA whistleblower lawsuit with the US Department of Labor Office of
`
`Administrative Law Judges, Plaintiff’s open NLRB charges and cases which will lead to the US NLRB
`
`suing Apple, Plaintiff’s conversations with US DOJ and US SEC about Plaintiff’s complaints in 2021,
`
`me discovering the semiconductor fabrication at 3250 Scott Blvd and filing complaints, me
`
`discovering the US EPA inspection of Plaintiff’s Superfund office in August 2019, and mention me
`
`seeking medical treatment due to chemical exposure form Apple’s exhaust. None of this seems
`
`“immaterial.” The harassment and intimidation is still ongoing, so there is no reason to admit the
`
`continued protected conduct and the target of their intimidation attempts, to interfere with these open
`
`cases, investigations, and proceedings.
`
`26.
`
`As a general rule, courts disfavor motions to strike, because striking a pleading is
`
`a drastic remedy and is often sought as a dilatory or harassing tactic by the moving party. 5C
`
`Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1380 (3d ed. 2004). Colaprico v.
`
`Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D.Cal. 1991).
`
`27.
`
`As with a motion to dismiss, the court should view the pleading sought to be struck
`
`in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. In re Fibrogen Sec. Litig., 21-cv-02623-EMC,
`
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023). In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec. Lit., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal.
`
`2000). Viewing the TTAC in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the proposed facts and allegations
`
`that Defendant seeks to have stricken are not “redundant, impertinent, immaterial, or scandalous,”
`
`and they have obvious relation to the controversy.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`PAGE 8
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`
`VII. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE DEFENDANT IS NOT
`PREJUDICED
`
`28.
`
`“Motions to strike are disfavored and infrequently granted.” Neveu v. City of Fresno,
`
`392 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2005). Motions to strike are 'generally disfavored because
`
`they are often used as delaying tactics and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal
`
`practice.'" Cortina v. Goya Foods, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1182 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting
`
`Rosales v. Citibank, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2001)).
`
`29.
`
`A motion to strike is a severe measure and it is generally viewed with disfavor. See
`
`United States v. 729.773 Acres of Land, Etc.,531 F. Supp. 967, 971 (D.Haw). 1982). Given their
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`disfavored status, courts often require "a showing of prejudice by the moving party" before
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`granting the requested relief. California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific,
`
`Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
`
`30.
`
`Defendants’ failure to demonstrate prejudice is, by itself, sufficient reason to deny
`
`their motion. Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) motions are disfavored, courts typically require a
`
`showing of prejudice to the moving party. Defendant does not articulate what prejudice he would
`
`sustain by having to respond to the portions of the complaint that allegedly do not comply with
`
`Rule 12(f). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) (providing that a motion must “state with particularity the
`
`grounds for seeking the order”); see also Haley Paint Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 279
`
`F.R.D. 331, 335 (D. Md. 2012) – (exercising discretion not to strike pleadings under Rule 12(f)
`
`where the movants “articulated no prejudice that would result from a denial of their motion”); U.S.
`
`ex rel. Ackley, 110 F. Supp. 2d 395 (D. Md. 2000) – (noting that Rule 12(f) motions “will be
`
`denied unless the matter under challenge has no possible relation to the controversy and may
`
`prejudice the other party”).
`
`31. Where there is any doubt as to the relevance of the challenged allegations, courts
`
`will err on the side of permitting the allegations to stand, particularly if the moving party
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`PAGE 9
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`
`establishes no prejudice. Da Chong Hong, Ltd. v. Silk Greenhouse, Inc., 719 F.Supp. 1072, 1073
`
`(MD FL 1989).
`
`VIII. IF MOTION GRANTED, AMENDMENT SHOULD ALSO BE GRANTED
`
`1.
`
`As a general rule, courts disfavor motions to strike, because striking a pleading is
`
`a drastic remedy and is often sought as a dilatory or harassing tactic by the moving party. 5C
`
`Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1380 (3d ed. 2004). Colaprico v. Sun
`
`Microsystems, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D.Cal. 1991).
`
`2.
`
`Motions to strike are generally disfavored. See Barnes v. AT & T Pension Ben.
`
`Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1170 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “If a claim is
`
`stricken, leave to amend should be freely given when doing so would not cause prejudice to the
`
`opposing party." Wyshak v. City Nat'l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir.1979).
`
`3.
`
`Note: Defendant’s counsel has failed to make any significant efforts to meet and
`
`confer with Plaintiff on this lawsuit, or to provide reasonable notice in order to effectuate
`
`cooperation and amendments to the pleadings.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE | 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`PAGE 10
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 53 Filed 04/10/24 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`IX. CONCLUSION
`
`5.
`
`It is apparent that the content of the complaint is relevant and that, accordingly, the
`
`Motion to Strike should be denied. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff respectfully requests that this
`
`Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Strike.
`
`6.
`
`As a pro se petitioner in civil rights case, Gjovik is grateful for the court to consider
`
`construing the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of doubt. Akhtar v. Mesa,
`
`698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). Should this Court believe that such facts are not adequately
`
`pled, plaintiff should please be granted leave to amend her complaint or a limited section of her
`
`complaint.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 9 2024
`
`Signature:
`
`
`
`
`___________________________
`
`s/ Ashley M. Gjovik
`
`Pro Se Plaintiff
`
`
`Email: legal@ashleygjovik.com
`Physical Address: Boston, Massachusetts
`Mailing Address: 2108 N St. Ste. 4553 Sacramento, CA, 95816
`Phone: (408) 883-4428
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26