MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

William Sassman ("Plaintiff") initiated this action against Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Governor of California, and Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in their official capacities (collectively "Defendants"), and Does 1-10. Plaintiff claims Defendants' exclusion of men from California's Alternative Custody Program ("ACP"), as authorized by California Penal Code section 1170.05, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) all of Defendants' affirmative defenses and Defendants' demand for jury trial.1 ECF No. 20-1. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED with leave to amend.2

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moved to strike all seven of the affirmative defenses set forth in Defendants' answer, ECF No. 9, and Defendants' demand for a jury trial. In response, Defendants agreed to withdraw three of their defenses and their jury trial demand. ECF No. 28. Defendants seek leave to amend their remaining defenses.3

The Court may strike "from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). "[T]he function of a 12(f) motion to strike is 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. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). "Immaterial matter is that which has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded." Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). "Impertinent matter consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question." Id.

The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that a court may not resolve factual or legal issues when deciding a motion to strike; rather, an assessment of the sufficiency of the allegations should be left for adjudication on the merits. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir.2010). Leave to amend should be freely given when a claim is stricken, provided no prejudice results against the opposing party. Wyshak v. City Nat. Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir. 1979).

Defendants concede that Plaintiff's Motion should be granted in part by withdrawing a number of their defenses and their jury demand. They also tacitly admit that a number of their remaining defenses may be stricken by omitting any argument that they are sufficient as pled and seeking only leave to amend. Even in instances where Defendants appear to believe their current allegations are sufficient, they nonetheless propose amendments to add additional facts. In fact, Defendants seek leave to amend all of their remaining defenses. As such, the bulk of the parties' arguments turn on the sufficiency of Defendants' proposed amended pleading. It is premature for this Court to consider the parties' arguments that are directed at that not-yet-filed document, since no leave to amend has yet been granted. In the meantime, to the extent Plaintiff contends that further amendment would be futile, that argument is rejected.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED, but with leave to amend.4 Any amended answer must be filed not later than ten (10) days following the date this Order is electronically filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.