Brown v. Sonoma County Land Company
Filing
14
Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting 10 Motion to Strike. Amended Answer deadline is June 28, 2017.(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
EUREKA DIVISION
7
8
JEANETTE BROWN,
Case No. 17-cv-00913-NJV
Plaintiff,
9
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
SONOMA COUNTY LAND COMPANY,
d.b.a. EVERGREEN VILLAGE,
Re: Dkt. No. 10
Defendant.
Plaintiff Jeannette Brown filed a Complaint on February 22, 2017, against Defendant
14
Sonoma Land Company d.b.a. Evergreen Village as the owner/operator of the
15
subject Evergreen Village, a shopping center. (Doc. 1.). The Complaint alleged violations
16
of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and related California
17
antidiscrimination laws applicable to public accommodations. Id. Defendant filed its Answer on
18
March 28, 2017. (Doc. 8).
19
On April 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the Affirmative Defenses from
20
Defendant's Answer pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 10.)
21
Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiff's Motion, and did not file a Notice of Non-Opposition
22
in compliance with Local Civil Rule 7-3(b). The court took the matter under submission on the
23
papers. (Doc. 11.) For the reasons explained below, the court will grant Plaintiff's Motion and
24
allow Defendant an opportunity to amend its Answer.
25
26
LEGAL STANDARDS
The purpose of a Rule12(f) motion to strike is to avoid spending time and money
27
litigating spurious issues by allowing courts to dispense with those issues before trial. See
28
Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2010); Fantasy, Inc. v.
Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir.1993); accord Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan-
2
Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1170 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Under Rule 12(f), a court
3
may strike affirmative defenses from an answer that are insufficient or contain redundant,
4
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matters. See Barnes, 718 F.Supp.2d at 1170; Qarbon.com,
5
Inc. v. eHelp Corp, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1048 (N.D. Cal. 2004). An affirmative defense is
6
insufficiently pled under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
7
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v.Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) if it fails to give a
8
plaintiff fair notice of the nature of the defense and the grounds or identifiable facts that, if
9
applicable, would make the affirmative defense plausible on its face. See Wyshak v. City Nat’l
10
Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979); Barnes, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 1170-1171; Qarbon.com,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
Inc., 315 F.Supp.2d at 1048; Hernandez v. Dutch Goose, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-03537-LB, 2013 WL
12
5781476, at *6-7 & n.2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013) (Beeler, J) (noting that "it appears that every
13
judge in this district to have taken up the issue has concluded that Iqbal and Twombly apply to the
14
pleading of affirmative defenses" and citing cases).
DISCUSSION
15
In this case, Defendant has alleged twenty-one affirmative defenses. (Doc. 8, at 18-22.) It
16
17
appears from Defendant's pleadings that the defenses have merely been "'add[ed] . . . to the case
18
simply upon some conjecture that [they] may somehow apply.'" Barnes, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 1172
19
(quoting Hayne v. Green Ford Sales Inc., 263 F.R.D. 647, 650 (D. Kan. 2009)). Specifically,
20
Defendant has failed to provide any facts or explain how a stated affirmative defense applies
21
against any of Plaintiff's claims. See Barnes, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 1171-73. Instead, as Plaintiff
22
argues, Defendant has merely inserted a series of conclusory and boilerplate statements asserting
23
that an affirmative defense exists without stating a reason why that defense may exist. See id. at
24
1172. No facts specific to this case are included in the affirmative defenses. This fails to give
25
Plaintiff fair notice of the nature of the defenses asserted, and is clearly insufficient under
26
standards set forth above. Because the affirmative defenses fail to meet the pleading standards for
27
civil cases prosecuted in federal court, the court will grant Plaintiff's motion.
28
//
2
1
2
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses is GRANTED. All affirmative defenses
3
are STRICKEN from Defendant's Answer and will not be considered by the court.
4
2) Defendant is granted fourteen days from the date of this order within which to file an
5
Amended Answer, altered from the original Answer only as to add adequately pled
6
affirmative defenses.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Dated: June 14, 2017
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?