3:19-cv-07901
N.D. Cal.Sep 2, 2020Background
- Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging Simpson Strong‑Tie manufactured galvanized hurricane straps that prematurely corrode, failed in many homes, and that Simpson concealed defects; claims include consumer protection statutes, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty.
- Simpson moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) to strike portions of the SAC: (1) references to settlements in two Hawaii class actions (Ocean Pointe and Ewa by Gentry) as inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 408; (2) allegations about Simpson’s later changes to its “Interior Dry Service” definition as barred by Fed. R. Evid. 407 (subsequent remedial measures); and (3) citations to an expert declaration as improper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c)/Ninth Circuit precedent.
- Plaintiffs defended the settlement references as evidence of Simpson’s knowledge, argued the catalog-definition changes were not remedial (or are admissible for permissible purposes), and said the expert citation supported factual allegations about design/use/longevity.
- The magistrate judge found some settlement and expert‑citation material immaterial or improper to remain in the SAC and ordered specified text stricken, but declined to strike allegations concerning subsequent remedial measures or allegations derived from the expert declaration.
- The Court struck: specific settlement outcome language in ¶¶127 and 129 and all citations to ECF No. 61‑2 (the expert declaration docket reference), but left intact the surrounding factual allegations and other challenged paragraphs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| References to prior settlements (Ocean Pointe, Ewa by Gentry) | Settlement/resolution references show Simpson’s prior knowledge and state of mind | Settlement references are inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 408 and thus immaterial/impertinent | Struck: settlement‑outcome language was immaterial; plaintiffs did not allege Simpson was part of those settlements so references were irrelevant |
| Allegations about Simpson changing “Interior Dry Service” definition (2019–2020) | Changes are not remedial or, if remedial, are admissible for impeachment, feasibility, and to show ongoing concealment and current warnings applicable to class | Changes are subsequent remedial measures barred by Fed. R. Evid. 407 when used to prove defect or culpability | Not stricken: court declined to remove these allegations at pleading stage; admissibility can be litigated later under Rule 407 when context is known |
| Citations to expert declaration (Werdowatz / ECF No. 61‑2) | Citation buttresses factual allegations about design, use, installation, and expected life | Expert declarations are not proper pleading exhibits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) and Ninth Circuit precedent; citations to such declarations in a complaint are improper | Struck: all citations to ECF No. 61‑2 and the direct reference to the declaration were ordered removed, but underlying allegations derived from the declaration remain in the SAC |
Key Cases Cited
- Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993) (defines "immaterial" and "impertinent" matter for Rule 12(f) motions)
- United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (affidavits/declarations are not pleading exhibits unless they form the basis of the complaint)
- DeMarco v. Depotech Corp., 149 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (expert affidavits are not appropriate exhibits to complaints under Rule 10(c))
- Bradbury v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 815 F.2d 1356 (10th Cir. 1987) (settlement evidence may in some circumstances be admissible to show state of mind under Rule 408(b))
- Wailua Assocs. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 183 F.R.D. 550 (D. Haw. 1998) (settlement allegations with no bearing on litigation may be immaterial and stricken)
- C & E Servs., Inc. v. Ashland Inc., 539 F. Supp. 2d 316 (D.D.C. 2008) (discusses limited admissibility of settlement evidence for purposes other than proving validity of claim)
- Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (discusses admissibility of settlement evidence to show intent/knowledge)