ORDER RE: AMENDED ANSWERS

Re: Dkt. No. 13

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio sues Guadalupe Antonio Bueno and Golden Valley & Associates, Inc. (together, "Defendants") seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq ("ADA"), and California state law violations of the Health and Safety Code and Civil Code.1 (Dkt. No. 1.)2 Defendant Bueno's answer to Plaintiff's complaint asserts 34 affirmative defenses. (Dkt. No. 9.) Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant Bueno's affirmative defenses, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (Dkt. No. 13.)

Defendant Bueno shall file an amended answer within 14 days of the date of this Order. The answer shall not include any affirmative defenses that are not as a legal matter affirmative defenses. Nor shall it include any affirmative defenses that Defendant Bueno does not have a good faith basis to allege. Plaintiff's deadline to move to strike whatever affirmative defenses remain in the amended answer or otherwise respond to the amended answer, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2), is stayed until further order of the Court. Such a procedure is consistent with General Order 56 which seeks to give the parties an opportunity to resolve the lawsuit before needlessly expending resources on litigation. The same stay applies to Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant Golden Valley & Associates, Inc.'s answer. Instead, within 14 days of the date of this Order, Golden Valley & Associates, Inc. shall file an amended answer that does not include any affirmative defenses that are not as a legal matter affirmative defenses, nor any affirmative defenses that Defendant Golden Valley does not have a good faith basis to allege.

The parties should thereafter follow the procedures set forth in General Order 56. If at some point Plaintiff believes he needs a ruling on a motion to strike affirmative defenses in order to move the case forward, he shall file a written request with the Court that explains why a ruling is needed, that is, how it will move the case forward given its current posture. Unless and until the Court rules that such a motion may be filed, Plaintiffs shall not file a motion to strike any affirmative defenses.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 13. The hearing scheduled for November 29, 2018 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.