Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 1 of 15
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
`In Propria Persona
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95 816
`(408) 883 -4428
`
`legal@ash ley gjov ik .com
`
`
`United States District Court
`
`Northern District of California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik , an individual,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Plaintiff’s Memorandum of
`
`
`
`
`
` vs.
`
`
`
`Points & Authorities
`
`
`
`In Opposition to Defendant’s
`
`Third Motion to Strike
`
`Apple Inc., a corporation,
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f )
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion Hearing & Case
`Management Conference:
`Dept: Courtroom 5 (Zoom)
`Judge Edward M. Chen
`Date: August 22, 2024
`Time: 1:30 PM PT
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`Contents
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. Table of Authorities ................................................................ iii
`II.
`Plaintiff ’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to
`Strike Claims ............................................................................... v
`III.
`Issues to be Decided .............................................................. v
`IV.
`Statements Of Facts .............................................................. v
`V.
`The Motion to Strike should be Denied ................................... vii
`A.
`The motion is filed in bad faith. ................................................... viii
`B. The motion should be denied because the motion is improper .............. x
`C.
`The motion should be denied because the facts are material and
`relevant. ............................................................................................... xi
`D.
`If the motion is granted, amendment should also be granted. .......... xiii
`VI. Conclusion ........................................................................ xiv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`— ii —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`I. Table of Au thor it ies
`
`Cases
`
`Amini I nnovation Cor p. v. McFerran Home Fur nishing s, I nc ., 301 F.R.D. 487, 489 (C.D.
`
`Cal. 2014). ..................................................................................................... xiii
`
`Armstead v. Cit y of Los Angeles (CD CA 2014) 66 F.Supp .3d 125 4, 1273 ...................... x
`
`Art Attacks Ink, LLC v . MGA Ent ., I nc ., No. 04-CV- 1035- BLM, 2006 WL 8439887, at
`
`*4 (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2006 ). ........................................................................... xiv
`
`BJC Hea lth Sys. v. Col umbia Ca s. Co. , 478 F.3d 908, 9 17 (8th C ir. 2007) ................. xiii
`
`Colapri co v. Sun Micros yste ms, Inc ., 758 F. Su pp. 1335, 1339 (N.D.C al. 1991). ............ xv
`
`Colapri co v. Sun Micros yste ms, Inc ., 75 8 F.Sup p. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 199 1.) ........... xiii
`
`Davidson v. Kimb erly - Clark Cor p. , 889 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2018) ......................... ix
`
`Davidson v. Kimb erly - Clark Cor p. , 889 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2018). ........................ ix
`
`Fantas y, Inc . v. Fogert y , 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th C ir. 1993), rev ’d on other grounds,
`
`510 U.S. 5 17 (1994). ........................................................................................ xiv
`
`Ferretti v. Pf izer Inc ., 855 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2012). ......................... xii
`
`In re 2TheMart.com , Inc . Sec . Lit. , 114 F. Sup p. 2d 955, 965 (C.D . C al. 2000). .......... xiv
`
`In re 2TheMart.com , Inc . Sec . Lit. , 114 F. Sup p. 2d 955, 965 -966 (C.D. Cal. 2000). ... xiii
`
`In re Fibroge n Sec . Litig ., 21-cv-02623-EMC, (N.D . Ca l. Au g. 29, 2023). ................. xiv
`
`Mason v. Ashbritt, I nc ., Case No. 19 -cv- 01062 -DMR, 6 - 7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2020). . xiii
`
`Ope rating Engi neers Lo cal 324 Health Care Pl an v. G & W Const. Co. (6 th C ir. 2015 ) 783
`
`F3d 1045, 105 0 .................................................................................................. x
`
`Pilgram v. Lafave, No. 12-CV-53 04 GAF-EX, 2013 WL 12124126, at *5 (C .D. Cal. Feb.
`
`7, 2013 ) .......................................................................................................... xiv
`
`Rumble, Inc . v. Google LLC, 21-cv-00229-HSG, (N.D. Cal. Ju l. 29, 2022). ................ xv
`
`Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gal lo Wi ner y , 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9 th C ir. 1987). ............ xiii
`
`See Barnes v. AT & T Pensio n Be n . Plan -Nonba rgained Program , 7 18 F. Supp . 2d 1167,
`
`1170 (N.D . Ca l. 2010). .................................................................................... xvi
`
`Stanbur y Law Fir m v. I RS, 221 F.3d 1059, 106 3 (8th Cir. 2000). ............................. xiii
`
`Tasion Commun ications Inc . v. Ubi quiti Net wor ks, Inc ., No. C -13- 1803 EMC, 6 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Mar. 14, 2014). ......................................................................................... xii
`
`Whittlestone, I nc . v. H andi -Craft Co., 6 18 F.3 d 970 (9 th Cir. 2010). .......................... xii
`
`Whittlestone, Inc . v. Handi -Craf t C o., 618 F.3d 970, 974 (9 th C ir. 2010) ................. xiv
`
`— ii i —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`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 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`Whittlestone, I nc . v. H andi –Craft Co ., 618 F.3d 970, 975 -976 (9 th C ir.2010). ............. xii
`
`Williams v. Count y of Alameda , 26 F. Supp. 3 d 925, 948 (N.D . Cal. 2014). ................ xii
`
`Wyshak v. Cit y Nat' l B ank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9 th C ir.1979 ). ................................. xvi
`
`Yamamoto v. Omiya , 564 F.2d 1319, 13 27 (9 th Cir.19 77). .......................................... xii
`
`Z.A. ex rel. K .A. v. St. Helena Unif ied Sch . Di st., No. 09-CV-0355 7-J SW, 2010 W L
`
`370333, at * 2 (N.D . Ca l. Jan . 25, 2010) ............................................................. xiv
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a) ........................................................................................... viii
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6 ) ........................................................................................ xii
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f ) .................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 ............................................................................................... viii
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B) .................................................................................... xiii
`
`Treatises
`
`5C Wr ight & Miller, Federa l P ractice and Procedure: C iv il 3d § 13 80 (3d ed. 2004). .. x,
`
`xv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`— iv —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`II. Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to
`Defendant’s Motion to Strike Claims
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Ashley Gjovik,
`
`respectfully
`
`submits
`
`the
`
`following
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s third 12(f )
`
`Motion to Strike. This Opposition is filed concurrently with her Opposition to
`
`Defendant’s fourth 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, and her own Request for Judicial
`
`Notice in support of both Oppositions. Defendant’s third Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f )
`
`Motion to Strike is filed at Docket No . 79. The Fourth Amended Complaint is
`
`filed at Docket No. 76. T he hearing is scheduled for August 22, 2024.
`
`III. Issues to be Decided
`
`2.
`
`The Court must decide whether to grant Defendant’s latest Motion
`
`to Strike, and if so, to grant only part, or grant in full. Then, if the Court does
`
`grant the motion, the Court must decide if it will give Plaintiff leave to amend.
`
`IV. Statements Of Facts
`
`3.
`
`From the get -go, Apple’s legal team has been playing a masterclass in
`
`“How to Avoid a Lawsuit 101.” Despite the Plaintiff filing complaints as early as
`
`August 2021, Apple acted like it was playing hide -and-seek, dodging ever y attempt
`
`she made to get them to engage. When the Plaintiff finally filed her original civil
`
`complaint in September 2023 (Docket No. 1), Apple responded by pretending the
`
`documents were radioactive, forcing the Plaintiff to hire a process ser ver. (Cer t.
`
`of Ser v., Docket No. 7) . Even after that, Apple's execs hit the mute button on
`
`ever y email she sent.
`
`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
`
`— v —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Despite Plaintiff ’s best efforts to communicate with Defendant’s
`
`executives, her attempts were met with silence. With Defendant’s response
`
`deadline looming on October 10, 2023, Plaintiff issued a clear ultimatum: respond
`
`or face a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a) , Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 .
`
`5.
`
`On October 5, 2023, five corporate attorneys reached out to Plaintiff,
`
`demanding that the plaintiff amend her complaint to give their team some extra
`
`time. Plaintiff, showing flexibility, agreed and t his resulted in a stipulation that
`
`was promptly filed and approved, making the First Amended Complaint the
`
`version Defendant was required to respond to. (Docket No. 9.)
`
`6.
`
`Over the next few months, i nstead of addressing the case on its
`
`merits, Apple responded with a barrage of legal maneuvers designed to delay and
`
`obstruct. The Plaintiff, in good faith, followed court requests for concise
`
`pleadings, yet Apple countered with an avalanche of motions and filings .
`
`Plaintiff ’s Februar y 2024 submission, meticulously crafted into a concise 75
`
`pages, was met with an over whelming flood of Defendant’s legal paper work,
`
`including a staggering 1,000 pages of motions and notices across two proceedings
`
`– including a Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, and Motion for Judicial Notice
`
`in just this case.
`
`7.
`
`On May 20, 2024, the court issued a favorable ruling for Plaintiff on
`
`several key claims. By June 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a streamlined 74 -page amended
`
`complaint in good faith, hoping to prompt a straightfor ward response from
`
`Defendant. Plaintiff ’s attempts to resolve these matters amicably were met with
`
`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
`
`— v i —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`last-minute filings and unreasonable demands from Defendant, who refused to
`
`provide clear information on their planned motions until the eve of deadlines.
`
`Defendant chose to escalate the conflict with additional motions to dismiss and
`
`strike in July 2024, demonstrating an ongoing reluctance to engage with the
`
`substantive issues at hand.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant’s subsequent actions have been marked by attempts to
`
`complicate matters further. They have accused Plaintiff of introducing new claims
`
`and concealing evidence, a strategy that seems more about creating procedural
`
`hurdles than addressing the merit s of the case. See concurrently filed Declaration
`
`and table with case histor y.
`
`9.
`
` This all seems like a tactical maneuver to tr y to justify another round
`
`of dismissals rather than engaging with the actual substance of the case . Defendant
`
`has avoided filing an Answer in this lawsuit for nearly eleven months – and nearly
`
`three years after Plaintiff ’s termination. Instead of addressing the substance,
`
`Defendant seems to be playing games, making Plaintiff jump through hoops and
`
`engage in extensive legal wrangling just to keep her claims alive.
`
`V. The Motion to Strike should be Denied
`
`10.
`
`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). Plaintiff does not believe any of the content proposed to strike from
`
`Plaintiff ’s complaint is immaterial and thus the motion 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
`
`— v ii —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`A. The motion is filed in bad faith.
`
`11. Despite the functions they ser ve, motions to strike are regarded with
`
`disfavor because they are often used as a delaying tactic, and because of the policy
`
`favoring resolution on the merits. Ope rating Engineers Local 324 Health Care Plan
`
`v. G & W Const. Co. (6th Cir. 2015) 783 F3d 1045, 1050 ; Armstead v. City of Los
`
`Angeles (CD CA 2014) 66 F.Supp.3d 1254, 1273 . As a general rule, courts disfavor
`
`motions to strike, because striking a pleading is a drastic remedy and is often
`
`sought as a dilator y or harassing tactic by the moving party. 5C Wright & Miller,
`
`Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1380 (3d ed. 200 4). Colaprico v. Sun
`
`12
`
`Micros ystems, Inc ., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D.Cal. 1991).
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`12. Apple’s filings for these motions to strike and dismiss reveal a
`
`fundamental misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of the nature of
`
`this lawsuit. Contrar y to Apple’s assertion that this case solely revolves around
`
`the plaintiff 's termination, the reality is that the lawsuit encompasses a wide array
`
`of serious issues supported by a substantial body of evidence. Apple’s attempt to
`
`narrow the focus of the complaint by striking allegations is not just a strategic
`
`maneuver but an obstructive tactic de signed to sidestep the complexities and
`
`breadth of the claims at hand.
`
`13. This approach disregards the fact that many of the allegations are
`
`critical to providing the full context and background necessar y for a fair
`
`resolution. Rather than engaging substantively with the claims and participating
`
`in the legal process, Apple seeks to undermine the plaintiff ’s case by eliminating
`
`pertinent allegations. Such a tactic not only hampers plaintiff ’s ability to present
`
`— v ii i —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`a comprehensive account of her grievances but also undermines the integrity of
`
`the judicial process. This motion should be denied ensuring that the full scope of
`
`the plaintiff ’s claims is properly adjudicated.
`
`14.
`
`This latest Motion to Strike is also a continuance of Defendant’s
`
`relentless censorship of Plaintiff ’s speech on critical issues such as public safety,
`
`labor rights, and her participation in federal proceedings. Defendant’s persistent
`
`use of these motions to censor, threats of protective orders, and refusal to provide
`
`information – not only burdens the plaintiff but also constitutes a direct attack on
`
`the ver y essence of the lawsuit.
`
`15. The crux of this case revolves around the plaintiff 's right to speak
`
`freely on matters of significant public concern and to participate fully in federal
`
`proceedings without undue interference. The defendant's continued efforts to
`
`silence and censor Plaintiff are not merely procedural maneuvers , but rather a
`
`fundamental challenge to the core issues at stake in this litigation. Defendant
`
`wants to prove that even in this litigation revolving around labor rights, right to
`
`know, access to information, and commun ity organizing – Defendant is still able
`
`restrict Plaintiff ’s speech, as well as influence the way Plaintiff ’s arguments are
`
`presented to the public.
`
`16. The repeated attempts to stifle the plaintiff 's speech are not only
`
`obstructive but also represent a deeper attempt to thwart the substantive claims
`
`of the lawsuit. It is imperative that these tactics be recognized for what they are —
`
`an effort to censor and intimidate, rather than engage with the substantive issues
`
`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
`
`— ix —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`of public safety and labor rights that are at the heart of this dispute.
`
`17. We urge the Court to consider the impact of these motions on the
`
`plaintiff and to ensure that the proceedings are conducted in a manner that
`
`upholds the principles of free speech and meaningful participation in federal
`
`matters. These actions undermine the plaintiff 's ability to advocate effectively and
`
`address crucial matters that are central to the case. We urge the Court to deny this
`
`motion.
`
`B. The motion should be denied b ecause the motion is improper
`
`18. Defendant's attempt to use Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f ) to strike claims that
`
`are already subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is both redundant
`
`and improper. Williams v. Count y of Alameda , 26 F. Supp. 3d 925, 948 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2014). Rule 12(f ) is not intended for dismissing claims but rather for removing
`
`immaterial or redundant matter from pleadings. Tasion Communications Inc . v.
`
`Ubiquiti Networks, Inc ., No. C -13-1803 EMC, 6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2014). The
`
`proper method for challenging the sufficiency of claims is through Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(b)(6), not Rule 12(f ). Yamamoto v. Omiya , 564 F.2d 1319, 1327 (9th Cir.1977).
`
`19. Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f ) does not permit striking claims for
`
`damages based on legal insufficiency. 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). Defendants’ request to convert their motion to strike into a
`
`motion to dismiss lacks legal support and should be rejected. Whittlestone, Inc . v.
`
`Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`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
`
`— x —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`20. Defendant’s motion to strike fails to meet the requirements of Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B) because it lacks specific legal grounds for the requested action
`
`and does not cite applicable rules or statutes. Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFe rran
`
`Home Furnishings, Inc ., 301 F.R.D. 487, 489 (C.D. Cal. 2014). The motion is based
`
`on vague and conclusor y statements, without demonstrating why the content to be
`
`struck is immaterial. Mason v. Ashbritt, Inc ., Case No. 19 -cv-01062-DMR, 6 -7
`
`(N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2020). Furthermore, even allegations not directly relevant can
`
`provide impor tant context, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f ) is not meant to test the
`
`sufficiency of a complaint like Rule 12(b). Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winer y ,
`
`829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987 ).
`
`C. The motion should be denied because the facts are material and
`relevant.
`
`21.
`
` “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 Stanbur y Law Firm v. IRS, 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000). A motion to
`
`strike should only be granted if the material in question has no possible relevance
`
`to the case. Colaprico v. Sun Micros yste ms, Inc ., 758 F.Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal.
`
`1991.) Courts generally disfavor striking pleadings because it is a drastic measure
`
`often used to obstruct or harass, rather than to streamline the litigation process.
`
`Striking should be reser ved for cases where the challenged content is clearly
`
`immaterial, meaning it bears no essential relationship to the claims or defenses in
`
`the case. In re 2TheMart.com , Inc . Sec . Lit. , 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 -966 (C.D.
`
`Cal. 2000).
`
`— xi —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`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 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`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 Fantas y, Inc . v. Fogerty, 984
`
`F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). Any
`
`doubts about the relevan ce of the allegations should lead to the motion being
`
`denied. 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 Fibroge n Sec .
`
`Litig., 21-cv-02623-EMC, (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023). In re 2The Mart.com , Inc . Sec .
`
`Lit., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
`
`23. Where there is any doubt about the relevance of the challenged
`
`allegations, courts in this Circuit err on the side of permitting the allegations to
`
`stand. Z.A. ex rel. K.A. v. St. Hele na Unified Sch . Dist., No. 09 -CV-03557 -JSW, 2010
`
`WL 370333, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2010) citing Fantas y, Inc . v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d
`
`1524, 1528 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, Fogert y v. Fantas y, Inc ., 510
`
`U.S. 517, 534, 114 S.Ct. 1023 (1994)); accord Pilgram v. Lafave, No. 12-CV-5304
`
`GAF-EX, 2013 WL 12124126, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2013) ; Art Attacks Ink, LLC
`
`v. MGA Ent., Inc ., No. 04-CV-1035-BLM, 2006 WL 8439887, at *4 (S.D. Cal. June
`
`22
`
`21, 2006).
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`24.
`
`Just a couple years ago this Court recognized the impor tance of
`
`denying a Motion to Strike matters which could be related to the dispute, writing
`
`“depending on the factual record as it actually develops, all of the interrelated
`
`27
`
`conduct alleged in the complaint could be relevant to the remaining claim that is
`
`28
`
`— xi i —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`not being challenged in this motion. That fact alone weighs dispositively against
`
`striking the allegations targeted by Defendant. Obviously, whether those
`
`allegations end up being backed by sufficient evidence to sur vive a summar y
`
`judgment motion, or to wa rrant presentation to the jur y at trial under the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence, is a matter for a later stage of the case. Rumble, Inc . v. Google
`
`LLC, 21-cv-00229 -HSG, (N.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2022 ).
`
`25. The matters and content Apple is challenging are all part of the
`
`factual record for the case – including for the claims Apple is not challenging.
`
`Apple challenges the toxic torts and wants to erase them, but what happened to
`
`Gjovik in 2020 is directly rele vant to her Tamney, Section 6310, and Section 98.6
`
`claims. Apple challenges the UCL claim and acts like it’s irrelevant, when its
`
`focused upon the sole reason Apple claims it terminated Gjovik’s employment.
`
`Apple argues there’s no case for IIED, attempting to deprive Plaintiff of any right
`
`for a remedy for the physical, mental, and reputational injuries Apple ca used her
`
`after her termination – while concurrently harassing her in real life, in real time.
`
`See concurrently filed Declaration.
`
`D. If the m otion is granted, amendment should also be granted .
`
`26. As a general rule, courts disfavor motions to strike, because striking
`
`a pleading is a drastic remedy and is often sought as a dilator y or harassing tactic
`
`by the moving party. 5C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil
`
`3d § 1380 (3d ed. 200 4). Colaprico v. Sun Micros ystems, Inc ., 758 F. Supp. 1335,
`
`1339 (N.D.Cal. 1991).
`
`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
`
`— xi i i —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`27. Motions to strike are generally disfavored. See Barnes v. AT & T
`
`Pe nsion Be n . Plan -Nonbargained Program , 7 18 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).
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`28.
`
`In conclusion, 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 Cour t deny the Defendant's
`
`Motion to Strike.
`
`29. Apple wants to strike Gjovik’s allegations about labor disputes, a
`
`culture of secrecy and cover -ups, and active public safety issues. Apple wants to
`
`strike Gjovik’s complaints about Apple tr ying to silence her about her complaints
`
`about Apple’s labor pract ices, Apple’s culture of secrecy and cover -ups, and
`
`Apple’s cover -ups of public safety issues . Apple even asks to strike Gjovik’s
`
`complaints about Apple’s attempts to censor her about the prior censorship about
`
`the original issues. We urge the Cour t to not entertain these theatrics from Apple
`
`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
`
`— xiv —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 85 Filed 07/31/24 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 30, 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
`
`27
`
`28
`
`— 1 —
`P l.’s O p p. to D ef.’s . Mo t . To St r i ke | Ca s e No . 3 :2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`