Well v. County of Alameda
- Cisneros
- 3:25-cv-01894
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Well v. County of Alameda, Judge Cisneros denied the County’s motion to strike requests for attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief, leaving dismissal issues undecided.
Shale Well’s requests for attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief remain in her complaint, while the County of Alameda’s separate request to dismiss her claims was not decided by this order.
What happened
In Well v. County of Alameda, the County asked the court to strike Shale Well’s requests for attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief from her complaint. The County also separately asked the court to dismiss Well’s claims, but this order did not decide that request.
The court held that Rule 12(f), which allows limited removal of improper material from a pleading, was not the proper way to challenge requests for particular types of relief. The court also said those issues were better considered later, after more facts were available. The requests therefore remain in the complaint, but the court did not decide whether Well can ultimately obtain either form of relief.
Judge Merry A. Cisneros denied the County’s motion to strike. The County’s separate request to dismiss Well’s claims remains for later consideration, and Well was required to respond to the remaining arguments in the motion.
The detailed version
- Well v. County of Alameda · No. 3:25-cv-01894
- Cisneros
- Apr. 28, 2025
Background
The County of Alameda filed two requests concerning Shale Well’s First Amended Complaint. Under Rule 12(b)(6), the County sought dismissal of Well’s claims, arguing, among other things, that the complaint did not allege enough facts to show that the County violated her rights. Under Rule 12(f), the County sought to strike Well’s requests for attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. Well was proceeding without a lawyer.
This order addressed only the arguments supporting the Rule 12(f) request to strike the two forms of relief. It did not decide the County’s separate request to dismiss Well’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Reasoning
Rule 12(f) allows a court to remove from a pleading an insufficient defense or material that is redundant, immaterial, irrelevant to the issues, or scandalous. The court explained that such motions are generally disfavored and are intended to prevent litigation of improper issues before trial.
The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that Rule 12(f) does not authorize a district court to dismiss a damages claim because the requested damages are legally unavailable. The court concluded that the same rule prevented the County from using Rule 12(f) to challenge Well’s requests for attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief.
The court also stated that, even apart from that legal conclusion, the requests should not be stricken at this early stage. The County argued that Well could not recover attorneys’ fees while proceeding without a lawyer, but Well might retain a lawyer later. The County’s arguments about injunctive relief involved issues such as possible irreparable harm, whether money damages would be sufficient, and the balance between state and federal authorities. The court found those issues difficult to evaluate without a factual record.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Merry A. Cisneros denied the County’s motion to strike Well’s requests for attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. The ruling did not determine whether Well can recover attorneys’ fees or obtain an injunction. It decided only that the County had not shown that those requests should be removed under Rule 12(f) at this stage.
The order left undecided the County’s motion to dismiss Well’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Well was required to respond to the remaining arguments in that motion by May 9, 2025, according to the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.