Brooks v. Bank of San Francisco

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/17/2020 re 8 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike: IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's affirmative defenses be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED as to defendant&# 039;s fourth, eighth, eleventh, thirteenth, sixteenth, and eighteenth affirmative defenses, and DENIED in all other respects. Defendant has twenty days from the date this Order is signed to file an amended answer if it can do so consistent with this Order. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

VALERIE BROOKS, individually and
on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

No. 2:20-cv-01366-WBS-CKD

ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

v.
BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO, a
California corporation; and DOES
1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

18
19

----oo0oo----

20

Plaintiff Valerie Brooks (“plaintiff” or “Brooks”)

21
22

brought this action against Bank of San Francisco (“defendant” or

23

“Bank of San Francisco”) and Does 1 through 101 seeking damages

24

related to defendant’s alleged violations of the Americans with

25
26
27

The Doe defendants have not appeared and there is no
indication as to who they are. Accordingly, the court will refer
to Bank of San Francisco as the sole defendant for purposes of
this order.
1

28
1

1

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq., and the

2

Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civil Code § 51 et seq.

3

Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 1-8, 10-13, and 15-18 in

4

Defendant’s Answer is currently before the court.

5

Strike”) (Docket No. 8).)

6

Plaintiff’s

(“Mot. to

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), “the court

7

may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any

8

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

See

Affirmative defenses can be challenged as

10

a matter of pleading or as a matter of law.

11

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 303 F.R.D. 625, 627 (E.D. Cal. Oct.

12

7, 2014) (Shubb, J.).

13

eighth, eleventh, thirteenth, sixteenth, and eighteenth defenses

14

are insufficient as a matter of pleading because they are merely

15

recitations of legal doctrines with no supporting facts or

16

allegations connecting the doctrine at issue to the facts of the

17

case.

18

See Harris v.

Plaintiff argues that defendant’s fourth,

(Mot. to Strike at 6, 8–11.)
When asserting an affirmative defense, “[a] reference

19

to a doctrine, like a reference to statutory provisions, is

20

insufficient notice.”

21

Supp. 2d 1046, 1049 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2004).

22

failed to provide facts sufficient to state the nature and

23

grounds of all these affirmative defenses or to connect the label

24

of the doctrines asserted to the facts of this case.

25

at 10–12.)

26

thirteenth, sixteenth, and eighteenth defenses fail to provide

27

fair notice as a matter of pleading and conceivably pose a risk

28

that plaintiff will have to engage in futile discovery,

Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315 F.
Defendant has

(See Answer

Accordingly, the fourth, eighth, eleventh,

2

see

1

Rosales, 133 F. Supp. 2d at 1180.

2

Plaintiff argues that Affirmative Defenses 10

3

(Reasonable Portion of Website Accessible) and 15 (Lack of

4

Subject Matter Jurisdiction) are not actually affirmative

5

defenses and should be stricken on that basis.

6

at 8–10.)

7

met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense.”

8

Zivkovic. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir.

9

2002.)

(Mot. to Strike

“A defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has not

Regardless of whether these defenses are properly

10

characterized as “affirmative,” the court will deny plaintiff’s

11

motion to strike these defenses because plaintiff has failed to

12

show that she will suffer any prejudice if these defenses are

13

left in the defendants’ Answer.

14

1180.

15

have already expended more resources than necessary on this

16

motion.

17

See Rosales, 133 F. Supp. 2d at

In fact, it is more likely that the parties and the court

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to

18

strike defendant’s affirmative defenses be, and the same hereby

19

is, GRANTED as to defendant’s fourth, eighth, eleventh,

20

thirteenth, sixteenth, and eighteenth affirmative defenses, and

21

DENIED in all other respects.

22

Defendant has twenty days from the date this Order is

23

signed to file an amended answer if it can do so consistent with

24

this Order.

25

Dated:

November 17, 2020

26
27
28
3