Morales-Alfaro v. CoreCivic, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBIA MABEL MORALES- Case No.: 3:20-cv-00082-LAB (BGS) ALFARO 12 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT Plaintiff, 13 CORECIVIC, INC.’S MOTION TO v. STRIKE ALLEGATIONS IN 14 PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AMENDED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 15 COMPLAINT [Dkt. 52] OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. (“CoreCivic”) has moved to strike allegations in 21 Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint (“Motion”). (Dkt. 52). Under Rule 12(f) of the 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, CoreCivic asks the Court to strike Paragraphs 3, 23 45–49, 51–53, 59–64, 75, 76, 84–89, 92–116, 125, 130–40, and 181, arguing that 24 the paragraphs are “rife with irrelevant, impertinent, and scandalous allegations 25 that have no bearing on [Morales-Alfaro’s] claims and serve only to smear and 26 defame CoreCivic.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiff Rubia Mabel Morales-Alfaro opposes the 27 Motion, (Dkt. 58), and the Court has also reviewed CoreCivic’s reply to the 28 opposition, (Dkt. 60). The Court DENIES CoreCivic’s request. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On January 10, 2020, Morales-Alfaro, an asylum seeker from El Salvador, 3 filed her initial Complaint, (Dkt. 1), which the Court screened and dismissed for 4 failure to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction, (Dkt. 3). Following subsequent 5 amendments, she filed her Third Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 33). Defendants 6 CoreCivic and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) (collectively, 7 “Defendants”) filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint under Fed. 8 R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6). (Dkt. 38, 39). Alternatively, CoreCivic asked the Court 9 to strike certain allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). (Dkt. 38 at 1). The Court 10 dismissed Morales-Alfaro’s Federal Tort Claims Act (“FCTA”) claims, denied as 11 moot all claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, and denied the motion to 12 dismiss as to the tort claims and requests to strike certain allegations in the 13 complaint. (Dkt. 49). The Court granted Morales-Alfaro leave to file a fourth 14 amended complaint, omitting all claims denied as moot and all tort claims. (Id. at 15 14). The Court also instructed her to correct any pleading defects and unnecessary 16 or inapposite allegations identified in the Order. (Id.). 17 On April 8, 2021, Morales-Alfaro filed her Fourth Amended Complaint 18 against Defendants. (Dkt. 40). CoreCivic again moved to strike allegations in 19 Plaintiff’s newest complaint. 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 Rule 12(f) provides that a court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient 22 defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 12(f). Rule “12(f) motions are generally regarded with disfavor because of 24 the limited importance of pleading in federal practice, and because they are often 25 used as a delaying tactic.” Kohler v. Island Rests., LP, 280 F.R.D. 560, 563–64 26 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., N.A., 290 F.Supp.2d 1101, 27 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2003)). “Motions to strike are generally not granted unless it is 28 clear that the matter sought to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the 1 subject matter of the litigation.” Id. (quoting Rosales v. Citibank, Fed. Sav. Bank, 2 133 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2001)). Additionally, background or 3 historical allegations should not be stricken unless prejudicial, and allegations 4 “contribut[ing] to a full understanding of the complaint as a whole need not be 5 stricken.” In re Facebook PPC Advertising Litigation, 709 F. Supp. 2d 762, 773 6 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 7 “Any doubt concerning the import of the allegations to be stricken weighs in 8 favor of denying the motion to strike.” Id. (citing In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec. Litig., 9 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965-66 (C.D. Cal. 2000)). “With a motion to strike, just as 10 with a motion to dismiss, the court should view the pleading in the light most 11 favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. (quoting Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 12 352 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004)). 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 CoreCivic argues that Paragraphs 3, 45–49, 51–53, 59–64, 84–89, 130–40, 15 and 181 contain allegations that are unrelated to the case at hand, such as 16 positions taken by the U.S. Government and U.S. Immigration and Customs 17 Enforcement (“ICE”) with respect to detention practices and ICE’s alleged flaws in 18 the inspection and monitoring protocols at detention centers. (Id. at 3). Some 19 allegations also pertain to another detainee, “Teresa,” who allegedly experienced 20 similar conditions of confinement as Morales-Alfaro. (Id.). CoreCivic argues that 21 these allegations are “irrelevant, impertinent, scandalous, and inflammatory,” and 22 nothing more than an attempt to “politicize this case and detract from Plaintiff’s 23 actual claims.” (Id.). 24 “Impertinent” matter refers to statements that don’t pertain, and aren’t 25 necessary, to the issues in question. Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 26 (9th Cir. 1993) rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517, 534–35 (1994). “Scandalous” 27 allegations are “allegations that cast a cruelly derogatory light on a party or other 28 person.” U.S. ex rel. Ruhe v. Masimo Corp., 929 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1038–39 (C.D. 1 Cal. 2012). Morales-Alfaro argues that her allegations are not irrelevant, 2 impertinent, scandalous, or inflammatory, but rather shed light on CoreCivic’s 3 knowledge, intent, motive, and control over detainees’ access to healthcare at its 4 facility. (Dkt. 58 at 4–5). She maintains these allegations directly relate to the issue 5 of punitive damages. (Id.). 6 This Court previously ruled that allegations pertaining to how other detainees 7 were treated during their confinement and suggesting deliberate oppression are 8 pertinent to Morales-Alfaro’s request for punitive damages. (Dkt. 49 at 13). That 9 remains true. Moreover, unless they are prejudicial, allegations containing 10 background or historical information which “contribute to a full understanding of the 11 complaint” need not be stricken. In re Facebook PPC Advertising Litigation, 709 F. 12 Supp. 2d at 773; see Moorer v. Stemgenex Med. Grp., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-2816- 13 AJB-NLS, 2017 WL 3992747, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017) (“Allegations 14 supplying background or historical material or other matter of an evidentiary nature 15 will not be stricken unless unduly prejudicial to defendant.”) (internal citation 16 omitted). CoreCivic hasn’t shown how Morales-Alfaro’s allegations unduly 17 prejudice them, even though they may “politicize this case and detract from 18 Plaintiff’s actual claims.” (Dkt. 52 at 3). The Court disagrees that the allegations in 19 question are irrelevant, impertinent, scandalous, or inflammatory, and, therefore, 20 DENIES CoreCivic’s request to strike 3, 45–49, 51–53, 59–64, 84–89, 130–40, 21 and 181. 22 With respect to Paragraphs 75, 76, 92–116, and 125, which concern topics 23 like CoreCivic’s annual revenue and alleged earnings, lobbying efforts, and intent 24 to maximize its profits, CoreCivic argues that the allegations “have nothing to do 25 with Plaintiff’s claims and serve only to cast CoreCivic in a derogatory and 26 defamatory light.” (Dkt. 52 at 3). But as previously discussed, these allegations 27 relate to the issue of punitive damages and CoreCivic’s alleged knowledge of 28 substandard conditions at its facilities. The paragraphs discuss the experiences of 1 other detainees, which this Court has already determined need not be stricken, 2 and also provide context about CoreCivic’s alleged financial motivations for 3 operating facilities like the one in Otay Mesa where Morales-Alfaro was housed. 4 The context includes background information about the specific nature of 5 CoreCivic’s business, its sources of revenue, and various lawsuits brought against 6 it for denials of proper care and treatment similar to what was experienced by 7 Morales-Alfaro. 8 CoreCivic hasn’t offered any persuasive reason why these paragraphs 9 should be stricken, other than to say that the allegations cast it in a bad light. 10 Because it isn’t clear that the allegations have no possible “bearing on the subject 11 matter of the complaint,” the Court DENIES CoreCivic’s request to strike 12 Paragraphs 75, 76, 92–116, and 125. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 CoreCivic’s Motion to Strike Paragraphs 3, 45–49, 51–53, 59–64, 75, 76, 15 84–89, 92–116, 125, 130–40, and 181 from Plaintiff’s latest complaint is DENIED. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: January 6, 2022 19 Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28