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