Nor-Cal Moving Services v. Paylocity Corp.
- Lin
- 3:25-cv-02085
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Nor-Cal Moving Services v. Paylocity Corp., Judge Lin denied Paylocity’s motion to strike allegations supporting a contract claim.
Nor-Cal Moving Services and Paylocity Corp.; the ruling allows the challenged allegations to remain in the pleading.
What happened
Nor-Cal Moving Services sued Paylocity Corp., and the court considered Paylocity’s motion to strike allegations in Nor-Cal’s pleading.
Paylocity conceded that the allegations could support a breach-of-contract claim that an earlier dismissal order did not address. The allegations also suggested fraudulent conduct, but the opinion states that this did not make them scandalous because they were relevant to Nor-Cal’s claims.
Judge Rita F. Lin denied the motion to strike. She also determined that the allegations did not exceed the scope of amendment allowed by the earlier dismissal order.
The detailed version
- Nor-Cal Moving Services v. Paylocity Corp. · No. 3:25-cv-02085
- Lin
- Oct. 15, 2025
Background
The court addressed Paylocity Corp.’s motion to strike allegations in Nor-Cal Moving Services’ pleading. A motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) asks the court to remove material that is allegedly improper, including material that is immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that Paylocity conceded the allegations “could be used to support” a breach-of-contract claim that the prior dismissal order did not address. The court therefore found that the allegations were neither immaterial nor impertinent. It also explained that allegations generally should not be stricken unless they clearly could have no possible bearing on the litigation.
The allegations may have suggested that Paylocity engaged in fraudulent conduct. But the court concluded that this alone did not meet the high standard for calling allegations scandalous, particularly because the alleged conduct was relevant to Nor-Cal’s claims. The court also concluded that the allegations did not exceed the scope of amendment permitted by the prior dismissal order.
Ruling
Judge Rita F. Lin denied the motion to strike.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.