Duran v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
- Charles Breyer
- 3:22-cv-06120
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Duran v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Judge Breyer denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defenses without prejudice.
The plaintiffs and defendants in this case: the plaintiffs’ motion was denied without prejudice, and the defendants were given 14 days to amend their answer.
What happened
Duran v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection concerns claims by Ralph Duran and Michael Esparza that a COVID-19 testing program violated state and federal law. The defendants include two California departments and their directors.
After the defendants answered, the plaintiffs asked the court to strike dozens of the defendants’ defenses. The defendants said they intended to withdraw at least ten defenses.
Judge Charles R. Breyer denied the motion without prejudice and allowed the defendants 14 days to file an amended answer. The plaintiffs may renew their motion after that amendment if they still believe the defenses should be removed.
The detailed version
- Duran v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection · No. 3:22-cv-06120
- Charles Breyer
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs Ralph Duran and Michael Esparza alleged that a COVID-19 testing program implemented by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the California Department of Human Resources, and their directors, Eraina Ortega and Joe Tyler, violated state and federal law.
After the defendants answered the complaint, the plaintiffs moved to strike dozens of the defendants’ asserted defenses. A motion to strike asks the court to remove material from a pleading, such as a defense.
Ruling
The defendants stated that they intended to withdraw at least ten affirmative defenses based on the plaintiffs’ arguments. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion at that time and allowed the defendants an opportunity to amend their answer to withdraw or amend defenses.
The court ordered that the defendants could file an amended answer within 14 days. The plaintiffs may renew their motion after the amendment if they still believe they have valid arguments for striking defenses. The court denied the motion without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs may bring it again. The court also warned that motions to strike are viewed with disfavor and should not be renewed as a delaying or harassing tactic. The order was signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.