Warkentin v. Federated Life Insurance Company

Filing 60

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 51 Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant/Counter-claimant's Answer to First Amended Complaint and Counter Claim in its Entirety, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/23/2012. (Figueroa, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
KEITH WARKENTIN,
9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERATED LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

13
14

Defendant.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10cv0221 DLB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
DEFENDANT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT’S
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND COUNTER CLAIM IN ITS
ENTIRETY
(Document 51)

16
On February 21, 2012, Plaintiff Keith Warkentin (“Plaintiff” or “Warkentin”) filed the
17
instant motion to strike portions of the answer and counterclaim filed by Defendant Federated
18
Life Insurance Company (“Federated”). The matter was heard on March 23, 2012, before the
19
Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. David Hollingsworth appeared on
20
behalf of Warkentin. Sheila Tatayon appeared on behalf of Federated.
21

FACTUAL BACKGROUND1

22
On June 14, 2005, Warkentin completed and signed a written application for a disability
23
insurance policy from Federated.
24
On June 27, 2005, Federated conducted a phone interview with Warkentin. During the
25
interview, Federated asked questions contained in the application, including “Have you seen any
26
other doctors, chiropractors, specialists, or therapists in the last 5 years including any medication,
27
28

1

The underlying facts are derived from Warkentin’s motion to strike. Doc. 52.

1

1

treatment or therapy?” Warkentin responded “No.”

2

On September 8, 2005, Federated sent Warkentin disability insurance policy 656909

3

(“Policy”), along with an Acknowledgment of Acceptance and Delivery of Policy

4

(“Acknowledgment”). Warkentin signed the Acknowledgment attesting that the information

5

contained in the Policy (and application) was true to the best of his knowledge.

6

After a dispute arose regarding the Policy coverage, Warkentin initiated this action on

7

December 22, 2009, in Merced County Superior Court. Warkentin initially claimed that

8

Federated unreasonably denied him benefits under two disability insurance policies. Federated

9

removed the action to this Court on February 10, 2010, and filed an answer to the complaint.

10

On January 12, 2012, the parties stipulated to to allow Warkentin to file a First Amended

11

Complaint (“FAC”) and to allow Federated to file a response. Doc. 36. Thereafter, Warkentin

12

filed his FAC, which seeks damages for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of

13

good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17500 et

14

seq.), negligent misrepresentation and fraud. Doc. 41. Federated filed an answer to the FAC,

15

along with a counterclaim for rescission and declaratory relief. Doc. 44.

16

On February 21, 2012, Warkentin filed an answer to Federated’s counterclaim.

17

Warkentin also filed the present motion to strike. Doc. 52. Warkentin requests an order striking:

18

(1) Federated’s Twenty-Third, Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth affirmative defenses for the

19

equitable remedy of rescission, a declaration that the Policy is void ab initio and rescission of the

20

contract; and (2) Federated’s counterclaim for rescission based on material misstatements and

21

concealment and for declaratory relief.

22
23

Federated filed its opposition to the motion on March 9, 2012. Warkentin did not file a
reply.

24
25
26

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the Court may strike from a pleading

27

any “insufficient defense” or any material that is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or

28

scandalous.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “[O]nly pleadings are subject to motions to strike.” See
2

1

Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983).

2

The essential function of a Rule 12(f) motion is to “avoid the expenditure of time and

3

money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to

4

trial.” Sidney-Vinstein, 697 F.2d at 885. However, “[m]otions to strike are disfavored and

5

infrequently granted.” Neveau v. City of Fresno, 392 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2005)

6

(citations omitted). A motion to strike “‘should not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to

7

be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.’” Id. (quoting

8

Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Indeed, when

9

ruling on a motion to strike, the “court[ ] may not resolve disputed and substantial factual or legal

10

issues . . . . “Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal

11

quotation omitted).

12

B.

Analysis

13

To support the motion to strike, Warkentin argues that the affirmative defenses and

14

counterclaim for rescission are barred by the applicable statute of limitation, waiver by Federated

15

and the doctrine of laches. Warkentin’s argument not only implicates legal issues regarding the

16

relevant statute of limitation, but also raises fact-based defenses to Federated’s amended answer

17

and counterclaim. These issues are not properly resolved on a motion to strike. See

18

Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 973. Indeed, a motion to strike should not be granted unless the court

19

is absolutely convinced that there are no questions of fact, that any questions of law are clear and

20

not in dispute, and that under no set of circumstances could the defense succeed. See Systems

21

Corp. v. AT&T, 60 F.R.D. 692, 694 (S.D.N.Y. 1973);

22

Insofar as Warkentin argues that there was no agreement allowing Federated to assert new

23

affirmative defenses and a counterclaim in response to the FAC, his argument lacks merit. On

24

November 16, 2011, Federated’s counsel sent a letter to Warkentin’s counsel regarding a

25

stipulation to extend discovery deadlines. The letter also sought a stipulation allowing Federated

26

to file an amended answer and provided a copy of the proposed amended answer. The amended

27

answer included a revision to Federated’s initial affirmative defense of rescission and three new

28

affirmative defenses related to the equitable remedies of rescission and/or reformation. Exhibit
3

1

A 43-66 to Declaration of Sheila Tatayon (“Tatayon Dec.”). Warkentin’s counsel did not sign

2

the stipulation allowing Federated to file an amended answer.

3

Subsequently, on December 9, 2011, Warkentin’s counsel proposed that the parties

4

stipulate to Warkentin filing a FAC and then Federated filing an amended answer. Exhibit A 28-

5

29 to Tatayon Dec. The parties did not reach an immediate agreement.

6

On January 3, 2012, Federated’s counsel sent a letter to Warkentin’s counsel with a

7

proposed stipulation allowing Federated to assert new affirmative defenses in its answer to the

8

FAC. Exhibit A 05-19 of Tatayon Dec. On January 9, 2012, Warkentin’s counsel responded and

9

stated:

10
11
12
13
14

Also, I’m sure you[r] client reserves the right to challenge new things that Plaintiff
has added to his complaint, just as Plaintiff similarly reserves the right to
challenge any new affirmative defense which may have been added to the answer.
With this in mind, I respectfully ask that we keep the stipulation simple and
straight forward
Exhibit A 02-03 to Tatayon Dec.
Based on the above, Warkentin’s counsel clearly understood that Federated reserved the

15

right to challenge new allegations by Warkentin, just as Warkentin reserved the right to challenge

16

any new affirmative defenses. Warkentin also clearly understood that Federated intended to

17

assert new affirmative defenses related to rescission of the Policy. Ultimately, the stipulation to

18

amend merely stated that Federated would file a “response” to the FAC. Doc. 36. In short, there

19

was no agreement precluding Federated from asserting new affirmative defenses or a

20

counterclaim in response to the FAC.

21
22
23
24
25

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Warkentin’s motion to strike portions of Federated’s answer to
the First Amended Complaint and Federated’s counterclaim is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

March 23, 2012

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
4