James Patrick Brown v. Michaels Stores, Inc. et al.

Filing 25

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Strike affirmative defenses 11 in its entirety. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:14-cv-05617-CAS(PLAx)

Title

JAMES PATRICK BROWN V. MICHAELS STORES, INC. ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 2, 2014

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS): PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7–15. Accordingly, the hearing currently scheduled for
October 6, 2014 is hereby vacated, and the matter is taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On June 18, 2014, plaintiff James Patrick Brown filed this action against defendant
Michaels Stores, Inc. (“Michaels”) and does 1-10 in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Dkt. 1. Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. and (2) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code
§ 51 et seq. On July 19, 2014, defendant removed the complaint to this Court asserting
federal question jurisdiction.
On September 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to strike all sixteen of defendant’s
affirmative defenses. Dkt. 11. Defendant opposed the motion on September 15, 2014,
dkt. 16, and plaintiff replied on September 22, 2014, dkt. 19.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to strike material from a pleading is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(f). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), the Court may strike from a pleading any “insufficient
defense” or any material that is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous.” A
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) motion is not a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and, where not involving a purportedly insufficient defense,
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:14-cv-05617-CAS(PLAx)

October 2, 2014

Title

JAMES PATRICK BROWN V. MICHAELS STORES, INC. ET AL.

simply tests whether a pleading contains inappropriate material. The Court may also
strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) a prayer for relief which is not available as a matter of
law. Tapley v. Lockwood Green Eng'rs, 502 F.2d 559, 560 (8th Cir.1974). The essential
function of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) motion is to “avoid the expenditure of time and money
that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to
trial.” Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other
grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). Because of “the limited importance of pleadings in
federal practice,” motions to strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) are disfavored.
Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F.Supp. 1450, 1478 (C.D.Cal.1996).
III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that all sixteen of defendants’s affirmative defenses are factually
insufficient to provide plaintiff with fair notice. Mot. Str. at 3. Plaintiff further contends
that nine defenses should be stricken because they are inapplicable and immaterial. Id. at
6.
Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that defendant’s answer
provides plaintiff with fair notice of the grounds for the defenses asserted therein. See
Vogel v. AutoZone Parts, Inc., 2013 WL 2395905. *1 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2013); Wyshak
v. City Nat. Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, the Court declines to
strike any defenses on this basis.
Plaintiff also asserts that the following defenses should be stricken because they
are either not affirmative defenses, or are legally inapplicable and immaterial: lack of
standing (No. 1); effective access (No. 3); removal of access barriers was not readily
achievable (No. 4); technically infeasible (No. 7); undue burden (No. 8); failure to
mitigate damages (No. 10); legitimate business justifications (No. 12); good faith (No.
13); equivalent facilitation (No. 15). See generally Mot. Str. The Court finds that these
so-called affirmative defenses are not demonstrably “immaterial” and are better resolved
on a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court finds that these nine
defenses should not be stricken.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:14-cv-05617-CAS(PLAx)

Title

JAMES PATRICK BROWN V. MICHAELS STORES, INC. ET AL.

IV.

Date

‘O’

October 2, 2014

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to strike
affirmative defenses in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3