Robinett v. CLA Incorporated et al
ORDER denying 7 Motion to Strike certain affirmative defenses listed by the dfts in the Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 11/9/11. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
C.L.A. INCORPORATED, d/b/a
SUBWAY/PIZZA PRO; ALAN
COVINGTON and MICHELLE
COVINGTON, each Individually
and d/b/a SUBWAY/PIZZA PRO
Pending is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses. The Defendants
have responded and the Plaintiff has replied.
Plaintiff asks the Court to strike certain affirmative defenses listed by the Defendants in
the Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. These defenses include estoppel, unclean hands, release,
waiver, indemnification, good faith compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, lack of malice, failure to mitigate, statutes of limitation, failure to
state a claim, and de minimus tasks. Plaintiff claims that these defenses should be stricken in
light of the heightened pleading requirements promulgated by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___,
129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127
S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2009).
As acknowledged in the pleadings, the majority of courts that have considered the issue
have applied the Iqbal-Twombly standard to affirmative defenses listed in the Answer. The
Eight Circuit has not yet ruled on the issue. This Court, however, is persuaded by the reasoning
of Judge Holmes in Ash Grove Cement Co. v. MMR Constructors, Inc., 2011 WL 3811445
(W.D. Ark. 2011) and adopts the view that the “plausibility” standard imposed by Twombly and
Iqbal on claims for relief do not apply to affirmative defenses raised under Rule 8(c).
In conclusion, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Docket # 7) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2011.
James M. Moody
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?