King.com Limited v. 6 Waves LLC

Filing 54

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; AFFORDING DEFENDANTS LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 31, 2014. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

KING.COM LIMITED,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C-13-3977 MMC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; AFFORDING
DEFENDANTS LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED ANSWER

v.
6 WAVES, LLC; SIX WAVES INC.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17

Before the Court is plaintiff King.com Limited’s (“King.com”) “Motion to Strike

18

Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses,” filed December 9, 2013. Defendants 6 Waves LLC and

19

Six Waves Inc. (collectively, “6Waves”) have filed opposition, to which King.com has

20

replied. Having read and considered the parties’ respective written submissions, the Court

21

rules as follows.1

22

In its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed October 31, 2013, King.com brings a

23

single cause of action for “Federal Copyright Infringement,” in which King.com alleges

24

6Waves infringed King.com’s U.S. copyrights in two computer games, Pet Rescue Saga

25

and Farm Heroes Saga, by “copying” said games and “publicly displaying, and distributing”

26

two similar games. (See FAC ¶¶ 75; 79.) On November 18, 2013, 6Waves filed its

27

Answer, asserting therein six affirmative defenses.

28
1

By order filed January 15, 2014, the Court took the motion under submission.

1

By the instant motion, King.com argues 6Waves’s affirmative defenses are not

2

pleaded in conformity with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and,

3

consequently, should be stricken. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (requiring defenses be “state[d] in

4

short and plain terms”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (providing “court may strike from a pleading an

5

insufficient defense”). The Court, as discussed below, agrees.

6

As King.com correctly points out, the answer includes no factual allegations in

7

support of any of the affirmative defenses, but, rather, as to each such defense, consists

8

entirely of a single conclusory assertion. (See, e.g., Ans. at 7:9-10 (“Plaintiff’s claim is

9

barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of license, consent, acquiescence, waiver,

10

laches, unclean hands, and/or estoppel.”).) “A defense is insufficiently pled if it fails to give

11

the plaintiff fair notice of the nature of the defense.” Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan-

12

Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1170 (N.D. Cal. 2010); see also Ashcroft v.

13

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (holding, in context of challenge to adequacy of

14

complaint, “legal conclusions,” to comply with Rule 8, “must be supported by factual

15

allegations”; noting such “factual matter, accepted as true,” must be sufficient to “state a

16

claim to relief that is plausible on its face”).

17

6Waves contends an answer in the form at issue here gives King.com “sufficient

18

notice” of its affirmative defenses. (See Opp’n at 1:9-10; 2:7-8). The Court, in accordance

19

with the reasoning of numerous courts in this district, disagrees. See, e.g., Barnes, 718

20

F. Supp. 2d at 1172 (holding “series of conclusory statements asserting the existence of an

21

affirmative defense” and lacking “some identifiable fact that . . . would make the affirmative

22

defense plausible on its face” insufficient to give plaintiff fair notice); Ansari v. Elec.

23

Document Processing, Inc., 2012 WL 3945482 at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2012) (applying

24

Iqbal’s “plausibility standard” to pleading of affirmative defenses; striking all affirmative

25

defenses as “mere recitations of legal conclusions”).

26

Accordingly, King.com’s motion is hereby GRANTED, with leave to amend to cure

27

the deficiencies noted. See Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir.

28

1998) (citing “general rule” that leave to amend following dismissal of pleading should be
2

1

afforded unless “any amendment would be an exercise in futility”).

2

6Waves’s amended answer, if any, shall be filed no later than April 21, 2014.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: March 31, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3