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)
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?