Liu v. TNC US Holdings
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-07313
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Liu v. TNC US Holdings, Judge White denied Liu’s motion to strike and allowed a sur-reply addressing a newly proposed New Jersey venue.
Frank Liu may file a sur-reply responding to TNC US Holdings’ newly raised argument concerning New Jersey as a possible venue; TNC US Holdings’ reply material was not stricken.
What happened
Liu v. TNC US Holdings concerned Liu’s request to remove part of TNC US Holdings’ reply from the record. TNC had mentioned New Jersey as a possible venue for the first time in its reply on its motion challenging personal jurisdiction and venue.
Liu argued that the new venue position should be stricken under a federal rule allowing courts to remove improper or irrelevant material from pleadings. The court declined to strike the discussion of New Jersey.
Judge White denied Liu’s motion to strike but permitted Liu to file a response to TNC’s new venue argument by May 6, 2022. The order did not decide personal jurisdiction, venue, or transfer.
The detailed version
- Liu v. TNC US Holdings · No. 4:21-cv-07313
- Jeffrey White
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
TNC US Holdings moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case. In its reply, TNC mentioned for the first time that the court could transfer the case to the District of New Jersey, rather than to New York as it had previously argued.
Motion to Strike
Liu moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike that portion of TNC’s reply. Rule 12(f) allows a party to seek removal of an insufficient defense or matter that is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The court explained that motions to strike are generally disfavored and that a court should deny one when there is doubt about whether the challenged material could relate to an issue in the litigation.
Ruling
The court declined to strike TNC’s argument that New Jersey might be a proper venue. It denied Liu’s motion to strike. The court also permitted Liu to file a sur-reply—a further written response—to TNC’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue, addressing the new jurisdictional and venue argument. The sur-reply was due no later than May 6, 2022. This order did not resolve TNC’s motion to dismiss, the personal-jurisdiction issue, the venue issue, or the request to transfer the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.