Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Williams, et al.

Filing 40

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/16/2016 ORDERING 35 The Court hereby STRIKES Defendant's second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh affirmative defenses without leave to amend. The Court STRIKES IWE's first and eighth affirmative defenses with leave to amend. The Court DECLINES to strike Defendant's fifth affirmative defense. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., 12 15 2:14-cv-02663-JAM-AC Plaintiff, 13 14 No. v. WILLIE HENRY WILLIAMS a/k/a WILLIAM HENRY WILLIAM, et al., 16 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE Defendants. 17 Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions (“Plaintiff”) moves to strike 18 19 all eight affirmative defenses asserted by Defendant 20 International Wealth Enterprises, Inc. doing business as The 21 Liaisons Lounge and Restaurant (“IWE” or “Defendant”). 1 22 Strike, ECF No. 35. 23 motion, but IWE’s counsel submitted a declaration indicating his 24 willingness to strike four of IWE’s affirmative defenses from its 25 answer. Mot. to IWE did not file an opposition to the Berniker Decl. at 2, ECF No. 37. 26 27 28 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled for August 23, 2016. 1 1 I. 2 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff allegedly owned the exclusive nationwide 3 commercial distribution rights to Ultimate Fighting Championship 4 167: Georges St-Pierre v. Johny Hendricks (“the Program”), 5 telecast nationwide on November 16, 2013. 6 1. 7 receive, publish, divulge, display, and/or exhibit the Program at 8 the time of its transmission.” 9 this lawsuit against IWE and Willie Henry Williams (an alleged Compl. ¶ 16, ECF No. Plaintiff alleges that IWE “did unlawfully intercept, Compl. ¶ 19. Plaintiff filed 10 “officer of [IWE]”) alleging conversion, violations of 47 U.S.C. 11 §§ 605 and 553, and violation of California Business and 12 Professions Code §§ 17200-17210. 13 Compl. at 4-8. IWE answered Plaintiff’s complaint, asserting eight 14 affirmative defenses. Answer ¶¶ 5-12, ECF No. 33. In response 15 to Plaintiff’s motion to strike, IWE’s counsel submitted a 16 declaration indicating his willingness to strike IWE’s third, 17 fourth, sixth, and seventh affirmative defenses. 18 at 2. 19 without leave to amend. 20 eighth (erroneously labeled in IWE’s answer as the eleventh) 21 affirmative defense remain at issue. Berniker Decl. These four affirmative defenses are therefore stricken Only IWE’s first, second, fifth, and 22 23 II. OPINION 24 A. 25 A motion to strike is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of 26 27 28 Legal Standard Civil Procedure 12(f). Rule 12(f) provides . . . that the Court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, 2 1 immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Motions to strike are disfavored and infrequently granted. A motion to strike should not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation. 2 3 4 5 Bassett v. Ruggles, No. CV-F-09-528-OWW-SMS, 2009 WL 6 2982895, at *24 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009) (internal 7 citations omitted). 8 extraneous to the plaintiff's prima facie case, which deny 9 plaintiff's right to recover, even if the allegations of “Affirmative defenses plead matters 10 the complaint are true.” 11 Hurdman, 655 F. Supp. 259, 262 (E.D. Cal. 1987). 12 Ninth Circuit, a defendant need only plead an affirmative 13 defense in “general terms.” 14 Manteca, No. 2:11-CV-00414-MCE-KJN, 2016 WL 3027742, at *1 15 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (quoting Kohler v. Flava Enters., 16 Inc., 779 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015)). 17 “the ‘fair notice’ standard, and not the heightened 18 pleading standard identified by Twombly and Iqbal [applies] 19 to motions to strike affirmative defenses.” 20 WL 3027742, at *1. B. 21 In the Staggs v. Doctor's Hosp. of Accordingly, Staggs, 2016 Analysis 1. 22 Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Main First Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations Defendant’s first affirmative defense is that “[a]ll claims 23 24 for damages are barred by the statute of limitations.” Answer 25 ¶ 5. 26 47 U.S.C. §§ 605 and 553. 27 No. 2:14-CV-02666-KJM-AC, 2015 WL 5020725, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28 21, 2015). The statute of limitations is one year for violations of J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Angulo, The statute of limitations is three years for 3 1 conversion, Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 338(c), and four years for 2 claims under the California Business and Professions Code, Cal. 3 Bus. & Profs. Code § 17208. 4 In evaluating a motion to strike, a court must treat facts 5 in the complaint as true. 6 No. 1:10-CV-00907-LJO, 2011 WL 201466, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 7 2011). 8 program in question was televised on a day other than that 9 alleged by the plaintiff, a court is “obligated to assume the 10 11 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Alvarado, If a defendant offers no factual assertion that the broadcasting date is accurate.” Angulo, 2015 WL 5020725, at *4. Plaintiff alleges that the Program was televised at IWE’s 12 Liaisons Lounge on November 16, 2013, and IWE provides no 13 factual assertions to the contrary. 14 complaint on November 14, 2014, within each of the applicable 15 statues of limitations. 16 stricken with leave to amend. 17 18 19 2. Plaintiff filed the IWE’s first affirmative defense is thus Second Affirmative Defense: Failure to State a Claim Defendant states in its second affirmative defense that 20 Plaintiff’s complaint “in its entirety and through each 21 separately stated cause of action, fails to state facts 22 sufficient to constitute a viable cause of action.” 23 “Failure to state a claim is a defect in the plaintiff's 24 claim[,] . . . [not] an affirmative defense.” 25 Prods., Inc. v. Romero, No. 1:11-CV-1880-AWI-BAM, 2012 WL 26 2317566, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2012) (internal citations and 27 quotation marks omitted). 28 defense is therefore stricken without leave to amend. Answer ¶ 6. J & J Sports Defendant's second affirmative 4 1 2 3. Fifth Affirmative Defense: Standing Defendant asserts that “Plaintiff lacks standing to bring 3 suit.” 4 affirmative defense by many courts.” 5 v. Dorsett, No. 12-CV-1715-JAM-EFB, 2013 WL 1339231, at *5 (E.D. 6 Cal. Apr. 3, 2013). 7 Answer ¶ 9. “Standing has been considered a proper Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. Plaintiff, citing to J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. 8 Nguyen, 2014 WL 60014, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2014), argues 9 that IWE’s standing affirmative defense is “insufficient as a 10 matter of law.” 11 however, analyzed standing in the context of the defendant’s 12 motion to dismiss, not in the context of the plaintiff’s motion 13 to strike affirmative defenses. 14 inapplicable here. 15 affirmative defense is sufficient. 16 IWE’s fifth affirmative defense for lack of standing is DENIED. 17 18 4. Mot. to Strike at 9. The Nguyen court, Nguyen is therefore Under notice-pleading standards, IWE’s fifth Plaintiff’s motion to strike Eighth Affirmative Defense: Lack of Control IWE’s last affirmative defense is that it “lacks control to 19 be held responsible for allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint.” 20 Answer ¶ 12. 21 in “general terms,” this affirmative defense fails. 22 least give Plaintiff fair notice of the defense being asserted. 23 Bd. of Trs. of IBEW Local Union No. 100 Pension Tr. Fund v. 24 Fresno's Best Indus. Elec., Inc., No. 1:13-CV-01545-AWI, 2014 WL 25 1245800, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2014). 26 indicate what or who it lacks control over. 27 affirmative defense does not give Plaintiff fair notice of what 28 defense is being asserted, and the Court therefore strikes the Though affirmative defenses need only be described 5 IWE must at Here, IWE fails to IWE’s eighth 1 eighth affirmative defense with leave to amend. 2 3 4 III. ORDER The Court hereby STRIKES Defendant’s second, third, fourth, 5 sixth, and seventh affirmative defenses without leave to amend. 6 The Court STRIKES IWE’s first and eighth affirmative defenses 7 with leave to amend. 8 fifth affirmative defense. 9 10 The Court declines to strike Defendant’s IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 16, 2016 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6

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?