Silvestri et al v. Martinez Refining Company LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALICE SALIBA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY LLC,
Defendant.
ELIZABETH SILVESTRI, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY LLC,
Defendant.
ROBERT MANNING, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-08153-HSG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
STRIKE
Re: Dkt. No. 30
Case No. 24-cv-08241-HSG
Re: Dkt. No. 31
Case No. 24-cv-08316-HSG
Re: Dkt. No. 26
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to strike affirmative defenses in three of the
related cases against Defendant Martinez Refining Company LLC. See Saliba v. Martinez
Refining Company LLC, Case No. 24-cv-08153-HSG, Dkt. No. 30; Silvestri v. Martinez Refining
Company LLC, Case No. 24-cv-08241-HSG, Dkt. No. 31; Manning v. Martinez Refining
Company LLC, Case No. 24-cv-08316-HSG, Dkt. No. 26. The Court finds these matters
appropriate for disposition without oral argument, and the matters are deemed submitted. See
Case 4:24-cv-08241-HSG Document 49 Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES
IN PART the motions to strike.
I. BACKGROUND
This is one of several related cases filed in this district against Defendant Martinez
Refining Company, LLC (“MRC” or “Defendant”).1 MRC owns and operates an oil refinery in
Martinez, California, that processes crude oil into gasoline and jet fuel. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.)
at ¶¶ 34–35.2 The refinery is surrounded by residential properties. See id. at ¶¶ 28–29. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant emits large quantities of particulate matter as a result of its operations and
ongoing safety failures. See id. at ¶¶ 3–10, 35–37. Plaintiffs in these three cases allege the same
five causes of action under California law: (1) negligence; (2) public and private nuisance;
(3) premises liability; (4) trespass; and (5) strict liability for ultra hazardous activities. See id. at
¶¶ 4382–4435.
As relevant here, Plaintiffs move to strike 19 of the 25 affirmative defenses that Defendant
identified in its answer. Dkt. No. 30. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has failed to plead sufficient
facts to make ten of the defenses plausible. See id. at 8–10. And Plaintiffs further argue that nine
of the defenses are not affirmative defenses at all. Id. at 6–7.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes a court to “strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” An
affirmative defense is insufficiently pleaded if it fails to give the opposing party “fair notice” of
the nature of the defense. See Wyshak v. City Nat. Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979). In
moving to strike, a party seeks “to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from
litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” Sidney–Vinstein v. A.H.
1 These include the above-captioned cases, as well as Malan v. Martinez Refining Company LLC,
Case No. 4:23-cv-4184-HSG; Cruz v. PBF Energy, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-06142-HSG; Frye v.
Martinez Refining Company LLC, Case No. 24-cv-04506-HSG; and Canning v. Martinez Refining
Company LLC, Case No. 25-cv-04511-HSG. They are all currently coordinated before this Court
for resolution of common issues.
2 For ease of reference, and unless otherwise indicated, all docket references are to Saliba v.
Martinez Refining Company LLC, 24-cv-08153-HSG.
Case 4:24-cv-08241-HSG Document 49 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). “Because motions to strike a defense as
insufficient are disfavored, they will not be granted if the insufficiency of the defense is not clearly
apparent.” G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Nguyen, No. 10-CV-00168-LHK, 2010 WL
3749284, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2010) (quotation omitted). In ruling on a motion to strike, a
“court[ ] may not resolve disputed and substantial factual or legal issue[s].” Whittlestone, Inc. v.
Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted); cf. Colaprico v. Sun
Microsystems, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (“[M]otions to strike should not be
granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the
subject matter of the litigation.”). “Ultimately, whether to grant a motion to strike lies within the
sound discretion of the district court.” Kanaan v. Yaqub, 709 F. Supp. 3d 864, 867 (N.D. Cal.
2023) (quotation omitted).3
III. DISCUSSION
A. Insufficiency of the Pleadings
Plaintiffs first argue that ten of the affirmative defenses are boilerplate, and they also fail to
satisfy the Twombly and Iqbal pleading standard. See Dkt. No. 30 at 8–10. The Ninth Circuit has
not definitively decided whether the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard should apply to affirmative
defenses. However, this Court recently explained that upon further reflection it does not believe
this standard should apply. See Lewis v. Hilltop Grp., L.P., No. 25-CV-03398-HSG, 2025 WL
2899511, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025). The Court incorporates this analysis in its entirety here.
As in Lewis, the Court does not find Defendant’s boilerplate defenses to be so clearly insufficient
as to fail to give notice, and it declines to exercise its discretion to strike these affirmative defenses
absent any showing that doing so would meaningfully streamline this litigation. The Court
therefore DENIES the motions to the extent they are based on Defendant’s purported failure to
plead sufficient facts in support of its affirmative defenses.
3 This Court remains among “the robust and growing ranks of district courts that have lamented
the time and expense squandered on Rule 12(f) motions,” see Inn S.F. Enter., Inc. v. Ninth Street
Lodging, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00599-JD, 2016 WL 8469189, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2016), and
agrees that motions to strike “serve little useful purpose in modern federal practice, and are often
wielded mainly to cause delay and inflict needless burdens on opposing parties,” id.
Case 4:24-cv-08241-HSG Document 49 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
B. Non-Affirmative Defenses
Plaintiffs next argue that nine of the affirmative defenses are not in fact affirmative
defenses at all. See Dkt. No. 30 at 6–7. Rather, they either attack Plaintiffs’ prima facie case
directly, such Plaintiffs’ ability to establish “causation,” or they do not preclude liability, such as
Plaintiffs’ ability to recover attorneys’ fees. Id.
As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “[a] defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has not
met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d
1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendant does not appear to dispute this. See Dkt. No. 42 at 10–11.
The Court therefore STRIKES these defenses without leave to amend. Still, the Court agrees
with Defendant that ultimately striking these defenses is of “little practical significance” because
Defendant can “challenge [Plaintiffs’] satisfaction of [their] burden to state a valid claim by
motion or at trial whether or not” the answer includes the defenses. Kanaan, 709 F. Supp. 3d at
869–70.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions to strike. Saliba,
Case No. 24-cv-08153-HSG, Dkt. No. 30; Silvestri, Case No. 24-cv-08241-HSG, Dkt. No. 31;
Manning, Case No. 24-cv-08316-HSG, Dkt. No. 26. The Court STRIKES Defendant’s
Affirmative Defenses 1–3, 18–20, and 23–25, but otherwise DENIES the motions in their entirety.
As will be discussed further at the upcoming case management conference, the parties have
significant work to do in these related cases, and the Court expects the parties to use their time—as
well as the Court’s resources—in an efficient manner that focuses on the key merits issues rather
than marginal matters.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
10/27/2025
Case 4:24-cv-08241-HSG Document 49 Filed 10/27/25 Page 4 of 4